Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[Squid]

I don't think the internet is the same as "in public". I have a right to take a stroll through the park without seeing someone masturbating.

Offhand, can you tell me where this 'right' is mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? I haven't heard of this one yet.

Children today have incredible access to porn through the internet... and from what I've heard from most of them, it's a non issue with them. They feel if they want to see it, they can. If they don't, they don't go looking for it.

 

[TmoonII]

I'm sure their parents are fine.

 

[Fnord]

I would not have fired her.

I would have helped her memorize her lines.

 

[slingblade]

BOW TO THE MORAL OUTRAGE CARD!! ON YOUR KNEES!!

He can't. He's got kids to get off the lawn, and you know how those arthritic knees pop.


@BigRed: your mores are outdated. Modern up, cowboy.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Yes, what about them?



I guess he had access to a computer and browsed a pornographic website where he viewed the movie. How much more complex could it get?



And how exactly were the parents "uncaring" if they knew their son viewed porn and allowed it?

Personally i don't care if a 14 year old watches porn or not. However, going by the rules, a 14 year old has no business being on an adult-only site to begin with. Since he had access, he obviously must have made false statements there, maybe even fraudulently used his parents credentials or whatever.

Parents are supposed to watch over their children. If a child is able to access things he should not access, then the parents neglected things. In other words, they did not care what the child could or could not access.

There are laws that deny children the access to pornography for a reason. Someone broke that law, obviously, otherwise the child could not have seen it.

It's simply a matter of obeying the rules, wether they make sense or not. But the rules are there, so people have to work with them.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[jiggeryqua]

You're kidding, I hope. How about because teachers are or can be a huge influence/role model to kids?

Secretary. She's a secretary. Or was. The clues are all there, in the thread title and various posts.

 

[Christian Klippel]

You're kidding, I hope. How about because teachers are or can be a huge influence/role model to kids? Oh I forgot, nobody cares about that kind of thing any more, since the apparent overall goal of our society for decades has been a continual lowering of standards in nearly all ways, ultimately to the point where basically anything goes. And sex? Sex is just something to make jokes about and take casually and that above all should get a "whatever" attitude. Why stop there? How about hookers for teachers? How about pimps? Hey you could really have fun w/this!

Plus the only role model kids ever have is their parents, right?

Riiiight.

All jobs are not exactly the same; therefore the employees should not all be treated exactly the same or have exactly the same criteria. To think so is an extreme and foolish oversimplification.

Before getting all upset about other people not sharing your narrow minded set of beliefs, you better start reading the article this is about.

Once you have done that, you may find out that this is not about a teacher. And anyways, what a person does outside her/his worktime is absolutely none of the employers business. Period. Unless the employee was stupid enough to enter a contract that tries to control her/his life outside the job, nothing will ever change that.

It's completely irrelevant if that outside-of-the-job activity means going into a cafe, go swimming, act in a sitcom or act in a porn movie. If you think that sex is such an awful thing, go to complain to your parents first, for they could not have got you by simple wishful thinking, you know.

The only foolish oversimplification is your obvious mindset: If we would all be just totally prude, never even think about sex or other things, the world would be such a better place, right?

Get over it. Sex is the most important part in human life. Without it, none of us would be here today. It happens to make a lot of fun, people like to watch it, people like to talk about it. If you don't like that, go and join some eunuch club or something.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Dorian Gray]

Personally i don't care if a 14 year old watches porn or not. However, going by the rules, a 14 year old has no business being on an adult-only site to begin with. Since he had access, he obviously must have made false statements there, maybe even fraudulently used his parents credentials or whatever.

Parents are supposed to watch over their children. If a child is able to access things he should not access, then the parents neglected things. In other words, they did not care what the child could or could not access.

There are laws that deny children the access to pornography for a reason. Someone broke that law, obviously, otherwise the child could not have seen it.

It's simply a matter of obeying the rules, wether they make sense or not. But the rules are there, so people have to work with them.

Greetings,

Chris

There's tons of free porn on the internet. If your problem is how the secretary was discovered, I think you're missing the point. I mean, it's like saying if you're speeding and you come across someone fleeing a murder, you shouldn't be allowed to report it, because had you been driving the speed limit you might not have seen anything.

I don't think the problem is what she did, so much as that she left a visual record that children could see. If she had been a stripper in a club, no child would have seen her, so no problem. If she had a gang bang with 14 guys in the privacy of her own home, no child would have seen her (assuming she got a babysitter), so no problem.

A lot of you are saying "what she does in her private life is nobody's business." Guess what? The porn video she made is not private. It's anyone's business.

 

[Dorian Gray]

If you think that sex is such an awful thing, go to complain to your parents first, for they could not have got you by simple wishful thinking, you know.

The only foolish oversimplification is your obvious mindset:

Maybe not the ONLY foolish oversimplication.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I don't think a porn actress should be employed in a school. I think the school acted in what it sees as the best interests of the kids. This trumps the woman's right to be a porn star.

I disagree slightly. It doesn't trump her right to be a porn actress. It trumps her right to be a porn actress AND work at that school.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Offhand, can you tell me where this 'right' is mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? I haven't heard of this one yet.

Children today have incredible access to porn through the internet... and from what I've heard from most of them, it's a non issue with them. They feel if they want to see it, they can. If they don't, they don't go looking for it.

Offhand, can you tell me where it says the only rights that exist are ones that appear in the Constitution? First, this secretary was in Canada. Second, we have the right to breathe, and that's not listed. A prohibition against murder is also not listed - does that mean we can murder?

 

[jiggeryqua]

There's tons of free porn on the internet. If your problem is how the secretary was discovered, I think you're missing the point. I mean, it's like saying if you're speeding and you come across someone fleeing a murder, you shouldn't be allowed to report it, because had you been driving the speed limit you might not have seen anything.

I don't think the problem is what she did, so much as that she left a visual record that children could see. If she had been a stripper in a club, no child would have seen her, so no problem. If she had a gang bang with 14 guys in the privacy of her own home, no child would have seen her (assuming she got a babysitter), so no problem.

A lot of you are saying "what she does in her private life is nobody's business." Guess what? The porn video she made is not private. It's anyone's business.

So you have an issue with anyone who makes porn? Campaign to recriminalise it then. But she engaged in a legal activity (not remotely comparable to murder, despite your analogy) in her own time and has been penalised by her employer for it. I'm finding it hard to understand how a group of people who are apparantly predominantly atheist also contains so many puritanical prudes. Cionsensual adult sex is not wrong, pictures of sex are not wrong, writing about sex is not wrong, film of sex is not wrong. Murder, as you say, is mostly wrong - but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Christian Klippel]

There's tons of free porn on the internet. If your problem is how the secretary was discovered, I think you're missing the point. I mean, it's like saying if you're speeding and you come across someone fleeing a murder, you shouldn't be allowed to report it, because had you been driving the speed limit you might not have seen anything.

I don't think the problem is what she did, so much as that she left a visual record that children could see. If she had been a stripper in a club, no child would have seen her, so no problem. If she had a gang bang with 14 guys in the privacy of her own home, no child would have seen her (assuming she got a babysitter), so no problem.

A lot of you are saying "what she does in her private life is nobody's business." Guess what? The porn video she made is not private. It's anyone's business.

Unless she made the porn movies in the school, during her worktime there, it was her private decision to spent her private time and none of the schools business.

And no, it's not a problem that she made a porn movie that pretty much everyone can see. And i'm not missing the point either. The rules say that 14 year old are not to watch stuff from adult websites. And the article explicitly mentioned "adult website". Usually such websites have some means of checking the age of the visitors. That may be a simple and inefficient "yes, i'm 18, show me the nasty stuff" or the requirement to sign up with a credit card number or whatever.

As a matter of the rules he was not supposed to be there. Because of such rules it's not her problem that some kids could get access to something they should have no access to in the first place.

My comment about this referred to the fact that, at least in the article, the blame is on her for doing whatever she likes in her private time without breaking any rules, but the kid is just fine for breaking the rules.

Again, it's her life, and she is free to do whatever she wants in her off-job time. It simple is none of the employers business how she decides to spend that time.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Cavemonster]

So? You can still die doing a stunt for a movie despite the best possible safety equipment. It does not follow from this that being a stuntperson is unreasonably risky compared to other jobs, nor that stuntpersons are bad people.

That's what we like to call goalpost moving.
You asserted that regular testing followed by unprotected sex with strangers was an example of a great role model for sexual safety, and when it was pointed out that was wrong, you backed up to "So?".

If you're not going to stand by your point, perhaps you shouldn't have made it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Aside from the red herring of role models..

I don't think the employer has the right to regulate her private activites.

Her activity wasn't exactly private ...

Besides, this whole thing could turn into a great career move. She's getting much more exposure than she ever would have otherwise...

 

[Roadtoad]

I'd have relocated her, but not fired her.

 

[Roadtoad]

You do realize, don't you, that she'll now make more as a porn star than she ever would have as a school secretary? Even more than she might have had the school simply shut the hell up about it?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Why shouldn't a porn actress be in a school?

Because.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's what we like to call goalpost moving.
You asserted that regular testing followed by unprotected sex with strangers was an example of a great role model for sexual safety

Please don't make things up and then pretend I said them. It's a dishonest debating tactic that adds nothing to constructive discussion.

Regular testing and unprotected sex with colleagues in the industry is sufficiently safe that I don't have a problem with people doing it, in just the same way that driving with a seat belt but no helmet is sufficiently safe that I don't have a problem with people doing it.

Yes, they'd be safer if they had a four point harness, crash helmet, roll cage and medical team following in an ambulance. However there's a degree of safety we just don't demand in everyday activities or in work.

, and when it was pointed out that was wrong, you backed up to "So?".

If you're not going to stand by your point, perhaps you shouldn't have made it.

I don't take responsibility for claims you make up and put into my mouth. Those claims are your problem, not mine.

The inescapable fact remains that acting in porn is comparatively safe compared to lots of other jobs, HIV risk and all. Thus anyone pretending that the HIV risk is the reason teachers shouldn't be in porn either hasn't thought it through, or is hiding some other agenda behind the fig leaf of sexual safety.

 

[jiggeryqua]

You do realize, don't you, that she'll now make more as a porn star than she ever would have as a school secretary? Even more than she might have had the school simply shut the hell up about it?

No, she might make a few quid in the short term off the back of this, but this time next year touting herself as 'the sacked school secretary porn star' won't interest anyone. I'm not sure many porn stars make significantly more than secretaries anyway.