The University of Maryland affirmed its students’ rights to view pornography last week. A policy included in the Maryland General Assembly’s budget bill last spring required state universities to develop an obscenity code to prevent the viewing of pornography on their campuses by December 1. If schools do not comply, they risk losing state funding. State Senator Andrew Harris introduced the budget amendment after University of Maryland students planned a screening of the hardcore pornographic film, “Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge,” last April. By implementing this measure, the Maryland State Legislature overstepped its bounds. With the December 1 deadline approaching, the legislature should either allow defiance within the university system to continue without interference or, even better, reverse its misguided legislation.

The policy requiring an obscenity code represents a violation of free-speech protections and would likely incur an expensive lawsuit. The Jefferson Center concluded that, had the University of Maryland adopted the policy, it would have been alone among the nation’s colleges in banning public viewing of porn on campus. The move, moreover, would likely have drawn a costly and drawn-out court case. Civil-liberty disputes are often watched carefully by individuals and groups who are not directly affected by the policy in question. This makes it likely that, even had a low-level court found the policy constitutional, the university system would have then been mired in months of appeals.

Though the University of Maryland schools may have been driven by practical considerations as well as moral ones, their decision to neglect to develop a policy was a principled stand. It is undoubtedly difficult for a school system that includes parents as some of its main constituents to defend the right to watch porn. Yet by putting constitutional rights ahead of easy moralizing, the university has shown an admirable commitment to the rights of its students.

In fact, the proposed policy would certainly infringe on civil rights. The government should not be in the business of regulating what films can be shown at colleges. As adults, college students are capable of deciding what is and is not suitable for their individual viewing. Despite being in a publicly funded location, these students are acting in a private sphere within which government interference has no place. What might be the limits of what some politicians find offensive? The policy’s precedent invites worrying implications.

In the end the University of Maryland’s decision does not just protect porn; it protects students. The moral lessons of college should be learned in books and experiences, not a legal mandate.