"Quake" stirring a porn controversy at the University of Pennsylvania?

Maybe Andrew can spare some time to look at the addictive properties of alcohol and tobacco as well. I don't spend much time on the campus, but I'm assuming that alcohol and tobacco are sold on campus as well and funded, in one way or another, in some part by the University.

Smart-sex magazines can be pretty cool. That's what Playboy used to be, right? It was supposed to be all sophisticated and all. I used to work for Nerve.com which was a print publication as well - a smart-sex publication. Playboy is what it is now and Nerve.com became boring the last time I read it with any regularity a couple of years ago. If Quake can hold it's standard, great for them, there is a place for some intelligent discussion on sex and not just gawking at saline DDs on Barbie doll blondes. Stifling that discussion will only lead to frustration and a misunderstanding of sexuality whereas if Quake does exist, it can help clear things up and open doors.

The whole university funding thing is interesting though. To attain sanctioning... I wasn't involved in clubs in college, but I remember how many rediculous clubs there were that did have university funding. Things like a Simpsons club, an anime club, a drama club. I don't see the big deal with an erotica publication getting sanctioning as well. If you don't like it, don't read it - the Howard Stern debate on loop.

As far as what is porno - I'd say that it is void of emotion and thought. It is what it is and nothing more. Just there to tickle the brain. I think that erotica can be porn, but it doesn't have to be.

AskPhilosophers.org has an apropos debate.

I agree with Justice Potter's basic premise about indecency, mostly because things carry different meanings to different people, as well as in different contexts. But is the story really about defining porn, or is it about the right of the university to sponsor it?

Anyone who opposes anything has a right to be concerned about it. And if Penn were a public institution, it's obligations might require it to nix this kind of project.

As it stands, it would seem that a private university can finance anything that's legal, but it may have to deal with a certain backlash as a result. The same would go if it sponsored some other equally controversial project, whether it be a neo-nazi club or an organization for advancing Christianity on campus. Not everyone would find any given one of these three projects objectionable, but they each have more than their share of opponents.