The Arizona state senate is currently considering a law, SB 1467, that would require schools and universities to refrain from engaging in “speech or conduct that would violate the standards adopted by the federal communications commission concerning obscenity, indecency and profanity if that speech or conduct were broadcast on television or radio.”

If implemented, this law would potentially rule out the teaching of works of literature or history that include offensive, derogatory, and/or lewd language, creating a special difficulty for the examination of free speech/obscenity cases, esp. in constitutional law courses.

Proponents of SB 1467 could point out that the FCC defines as obscene those materials that ”lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value,” thus providing space in the classroom for discussion of risque, but esteemed art or classic literature. But what about new kinds of artistic and political expression? Should universities have free reign to ban materials they perceive as obscene or in violation of FCC guidelines?

Moreover, notice that the law, as Angus Johnston over at Student Activism points out, covers conduct, as well as language:

Note the language of the bill: You’re violating the law if you engage “in speech or conduct” that would violate FCC standards if “broadcast on television or radio.” Not public speech or conduct. Speech or conduct, full stop.

Would this prohibit students and professors from attending certain kinds of political rallies? Or publishing magazine articles that include prurient language? And who is to be the arbiter of what is and isn’t crossing the line?