Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[BenBurch]

Um, that's not fighting, and it's not for money, and they're high school students, not employees. Are you even paying attention?

Football isn't fighting? Tell that to the little QB I sacked and broke 4 of his ribs.

 

[Dorian Gray]

So, I think firing a person for something they do which is legal outside of work time if it doesn't impact their ability to perform their duties (remember that she is in fact a secretary, not a teacher) is intolerant.

Okay, now think about that for a second. It's not illegal for someone to be a bigot who slams minorities all day long, listens to Prussian Blue while working and belongs to the KKK and attends rallies. Should a person who does that be allowed to be a secretary? After all, free speech IS a right, unlike being a porn actress.

And to the peanut gallery, if there is nothing wrong with being a porn actress outside the school, then why are many of you making the distinction that this woman was a secretary, not a teacher? Nothing wrong is nothing wrong, correct? Why does it matter what role she has in the school? Just something for you to think about.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Football isn't fighting? Tell that to the little QB I sacked and broke 4 of his ribs.

No, it's not. It's a contact sport where injuries sometimes happen. Your first clue should be that cops don't break up football games, but they do break up fights. Now stop trying to make outliers the norm, and get back on the planet.

 

[BenBurch]

Porn IS Free Speech.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

 

[dirtywick]

Anybody know if Canada has an equivalent to the ACLU?

 

[Dorian Gray]

The practical result of her being terminated from her position in a public school environment for reasons which will inevitably be viewed as "for cause" of moral turpitude will have the effect of precluding any possibility of her gaining another position within that field unless she lies about her prior work record.

For all intents and purposes this is tantamount to punishment. Any attempt to explain it away as something else is transparent prevarication.

Unless another school will hire her with preemptive language geared towards her not engaging in her second career while employed at the school. Or unless she gains financially in her porn career from the publicity generated by this case, even temporarily. It would be hard to call either of those situations a "punishment."

ETA: Or the blatantly obvious - there are many places she could work as a secretary that really don't give a crap that she was a porn star and where it wouldn't be inappropriate.

 

[BenBurch]

Why should any clause forbidding somebody freedom of expression EVER pass the bar of legality?

 

[Toke]

And I've made the point in numerous posts that I don't give a crap what people do in their private lives, but making a porno for money that is intended for distribution is not private. That's hardly "hot under the collar", and it's sad that you need to completely twist my position in order to knock down that strawman you've built up. In fact, a strong case can be made that you are the one getting hot under the collar, as is JQ.

The kids are not allowed to view porn so as far as they are concerned it counts as at least intended to be private.

A bit of a straw man anyway, how private would it be if she had had a job acting at the local amateur theatre?

 

[quadraginta]

Unless another school will hire her with preemptive language geared towards her not engaging in her second career while employed at the school. Or unless she gains financially in her porn career from the publicity generated by this case, even temporarily. It would be hard to call either of those situations a "punishment."

ETA: Or the blatantly obvious - there are many places she could work as a secretary that really don't give a crap that she was a porn star and where it wouldn't be inappropriate.

Oh, goody!

This is that "What if ..." game, isn't it? The one where people try to dream up increasingly implausible hypotheticals in a desperate, doomed attempt to obfuscate the obvious?

Excellent starting move. Plausible appearance of calm and reason. Lots of room for growth.

You go ahead and continue. Maybe someone else wants to play. I'll just watch.

 

[Toke]

Why should any clause forbidding somebody freedom of expression EVER pass the bar of legality?

What is the problem? It would be just as legal as the school having a Don't ask Don't tell policy regarding republican/conservative employees.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I keep raising that one, Toke. It's the 'porn', not the 'public', that's the kicker. And it's the prudes who are kicking.

I'm quite sure, as certain as they are, I expect, that the world would be a better place if all that confusing, difficult sex stuff just wasn't there. Alas, it is.

Am I JQ, by the way, DG? I have you on ignore, as I believe I've mentioned, but I'll take you off if you can make a 'strong case' that I'm the one getting hot under the collar. Not much in it for you, I grant you, but in case you should try I feel obliged to point out that 'you are getting hot under the collar ya boo sucks' won't convince me.

 

[Toke]

Oh, goody!

This is that "What if ..." game, isn't it? The one where people try to dream up increasingly implausible hypotheticals in a desperate, doomed attempt to obfuscate the obvious?

Excellent starting move. Plausible appearance of calm and reason. Lots of room for growth.

You go ahead and continue. Maybe someone else wants to play. I'll just watch.

I think you are being a little unfair to Dorian here.

All those laws about unlawful termination are pretty silly, people can just go get another job. It is not like getting fired interrupts your regular income or anyone had ever had problems getting a job. Right?

 

[BenBurch]

I think you are being a little unfair to Dorian here.

All those laws about unlawful termination are pretty silly, people can just go get another job. It is not like getting fired interrupts your regular income or anyone had ever had problems getting a job. Right?

In related news, the major new trend in hiring is that employers are unwilling to interview people who do not currently have a job.

 

[Toke]

In related news, the major new trend in hiring is that employers are unwilling to interview people who do not currently have a job.

I have always heard similar, that it is easier to get a new job while having one.

 

[jiggeryqua]

I have always heard similar, that it is easier to get a new job while having one.

She has one! She's a competent porn actress. With that on her CV, schools will be flocking to employ her. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

 

[Dorian Gray]

The fact that it is legally possible to do a thing does not mean it is a good idea to do that thing.

Doesn't mean it is bad, either.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Don't you think that, seeing as someone's livelihood is at stake, the school board need to have a damned good reason why working in porn is not compatible with their school?

I could put a whole raft of analogies in here but they'll get shot down as strawmen so I won't bother.

Can you reread your own post and the thread title and tell everyone why her livelihood is not at stake?

 

[Dorian Gray]

Why should any clause forbidding somebody freedom of expression EVER pass the bar of legality?

Her freedom of expression is not forbidden. She is free to make porn all day long if she wishes, now more than ever. However, being a secretary is not free speech, and is not a right. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Dorian Gray]

The kids are not allowed to view porn so as far as they are concerned it counts as at least intended to be private.

A bit of a straw man anyway, how private would it be if she had had a job acting at the local amateur theatre?

It wouldn't be private, but so what? What's your point? Aren't you aware that the schools themselves put on plays? At least try to make a decent argument.

 

[Toke]

Can you reread your own post and the thread title and tell everyone why her livelihood is not at stake?

Because she have ONE movie under her belt and can live comfortably on that while she draw North Korean welfare and fight off all the schools and others competing to employ her?

The school board is really doing her a favour by letting her "Seek new opportunities" or such.