Moral And Legal Issues

THE QUINCY HOUSE Film Society's decision to show the pornographic film Deep Throat raises equally important moral and legal issues. What started as a debate over whether students should show a degrading, sexist film in the Quincy House Dining Hall became a legal question as well Friday night when police arrested two students on charges of disseminating obscene material.

The Quincy House Film Society should never have decided to show Deep Throat. The film is "equally degrading to both men and women," as Judge Charles Alberti ruled Friday. The society chose to support the pornography industry--infamous for its brutal exploitation--to the tune of $375, money that could have purchased a more worthwhile movie.

Even after many Quincy House residents protested the showing of The Cheerleaders last fall and even though the society officers knew many would find the film offensive, they chose to ignore those feelings. In doing so, they displayed--in a manner far more obscene than anything on the celluloid--their contempt and indifference to those who would be hurt by the screening.

Protesters rightly took the opportunity to educate the all-too-insensitive student body to the dangers of porn. Slide shows presented the link between sexism and violence; handouts traced the story of Linda Boreman Marciano's treatment during the filming of the movie that made her a "star"--treatment that can only be described as criminal and obscene. The demonstration the night of the screening was inspiring: as many people watched the slide show as the movie. We support that protest for its condemnation of an insensitive and wrong decision to support pornography, and we urge House film societies to consider the feelings of others in their selection of movies.

But if students do choose to ignore others and to show pornographic films, they should be allowed to do so under the protection of the First Amendment. The current case proves how the less-than-just American judicial system can mishandle controversy brought to its attention. After a civil court judge decided Friday afternoon not to prohibit the showing of the film because did not find it obscene, the district attorney's office chose to make the arrests--a decision that begs reason, not to mention legality. In effect, an assistant clerk of courts and a state trooper overruled a civil court judge by confiscating the film and imposing an injunction of their own.

We defend the principle of free speech even for those with whom we deeply disagree, and we abhor the district's attorney's action. But the Quincy House Film Society should never have allowed the issue to become a legal one. Because controversy over the film had been flaring for more than two weeks, the society, Quincy House Master Charles Dunn and other College authorities had more then enough time to agree not to screen the film--solely on moral grounds. While "legal" action must never hinder First Amendment right, in this case proper moral judgment should have obviated the legal question.