It will come as no surprise that The Koala, UCSD’s student humor paper, is back in the news. This time school officials are investigating the legality of a Student Run Television (SRTV) broadcast showing sexual acts performed by The Koala editor Steve York.

According to the campus paper, The UCSD Guardian, the school is looking to see if the broadcast abided by policies within the station’s charter, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations and campus policies.

The Feb. 3 “Koala” broadcast on SRTV included acts of oral sex and ejaculation by York, a John Muir College senior, and an unidentified woman.

The Koala has previously clashed with university officials over its content. I’ve written about the paper several times, as it often makes derisive comments about gays and lesbians. While the First Amendment protects the paper’s content, I have raised the question concerning the fairness of using student funds, including GLBT students, to pay for a paper that creates a hostile environment for them.

UCSD has been reluctant to take any action against the paper and its staff in the past. “While we were hesitant to welcome The Koala when they approached us last quarter about having their own show, SRTV could not discriminate [against] them for their past behavior,” station manager Chelsea Welch stated in a Feb. 22 email sent out to the student body. “When it comes to students’ shows, I have to stay content-neutral.”

Unfortunately, broadcasters cannot be “content-neutral.” If the unidentified woman in York’s video is a day under 18, Welch faces 10 years in prison for airing child pornography.

In an email to The Guardian, York stated that his broadcast was meant to support free speech rights and that he invites any challenge from the school administration.

“I’ve been put into a position to advocate for free speech issues and it’s great that the tool for them has been my penis,” he stated.

As a closed-circuit station, SRTV claims it is not bound by FCC operating regulations. Obscene material without copyrights may be broadcasted between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., Welch said. However, the station’s charter requires that the content offer an “artistic medium within the context of FCC rules and regulations governing on-air conduct and the operation of a closed-circuit television station.”

Of course, regardless of FCC regulations, using any instrumentality of interstate commerce – the Internet, closed-circuit TV – to broadcast “obscene” material is illegal. However, York’s tape is not obscene. It could be interpreted as pornographic or offensive.

Years ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that students on public college campuses have First Amendment rights. The case involved a student who was distributing an underground newspaper on her campus. The paper contained a cartoon depicting a police officer raping the Statue of Liberty.

The court held that the school could not discipline the student for her First Amendment conduct. It was her paper; she was just passing it out on campus.

However, last year the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – in a decision I criticized in this column – pointed out that, like high schools, colleges can determine what is appropriate for their publications, even those written by students.

Look for UCSD to argue that the decision will apply to campus newspapers and broadcast facilities. So as long as campus resources are involved, school officials will have ultimate control. The reason is simple: liability.

Airing pornographic footage on a university broadcast could subject the university to liability for child pornography, invasion of privacy (if students are photographed without consent), gender discrimination (sexual harassment), and, as ludicrous as it sounds, unfair competition. Hey, lots of companies make their money selling college porn, and they don’t want nonprofit entities like UCSD infringing on their turf. I’m not kidding.

The issue is likely to come before the U.S. Supreme Court by next year. That’s because a federal appellate court will rule shortly on whether college officials can censor student newspapers. Regardless of the outcome, the Supreme Court will most likely hear the appeal and may rule in favor of the universities.

In any event, the Internet makes it possible for anyone to publish a paper, broadcast a radio show or a TV show. York could easily broadcast his tape on a website. He doesn’t need to use tax-funded facilities.