Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[Dorian Gray]

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.

Which one was implausible - that an experienced secretary can get a job that isn't in a school, or that a porn actress flush with recent publicity can get paid a lot of money for making another porno?

You know, maybe you should just watch.

 

[Toke]

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.

My bolding.

The point is that you confuse the private of "outside work hours", with the private of "as long as nobody finds out about it".

 

[Toke]

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?

You are talking about contract clauses that does not at all, and in no way whatsoever, limit any ones freedom of expression, they just reserve the right to fire you if you use it?

As in you being perfectly free to e.g. vote republican, but you will get fired if we find out about it.

 

[Dorian Gray]

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.

For all you know, some of the teachers and principals may have made a private video for use in their own home. But no one knows. You know why? It's freakin private.

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.

Yeah, it sure didn't convince me when you or someone in your ideological wheelhouse said the exact same thing, Mr. Pot. To me, all your posts sound like shrill shrieking about how porn should be in all aspects of our lives, and everyone should have 'porn actor/actress' as their second job. You iz tha PRUDZ! and whatnot. Gosh, but that's compelling.

P.S. If I'm on ignore, then you're not doing it right. What part of 'ignore' don't you understand?

 

[Dorian Gray]

My bolding.

The point is that you confuse the private of "outside work hours", with the private of "as long as nobody finds out about it".

I don't. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to come up with a long list of things that can be done outside work hours that would nevertheless get you fired. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to come up with a long list of things that can be done inside your house with impunity, but if done as a show or public performance, can get you fired.

My point is that you attempt to equate porn with plays, knowing that schools put on plays and are not likely to have a problem, therefore, with their employees appearing in plays.

 

[Dorian Gray]

You are talking about contract clauses that does not at all, and in no way whatsoever, limit any ones freedom of expression, they just reserve the right to fire you if you use it?

As in you being perfectly free to e.g. vote republican, but you will get fired if we find out about it.

No, as in having the right to free speech, yet nevertheless being fired if you calmly tell your black boss that you think whites are superior in every way, and black people should go back to the cotton fields, or telling your female boss that she has nice tits and a great ass.

Consider when Gottfried got fired for his Japan/tsunami jokes, or Limbaugh got fired for his comments about McNabb, or Maher got fired for his comments about terrorists, or how Gervais certainly won't be hired again for his behavior at the Oscars. Freedom of speech, all, but if your employer doesn't like what you say or do, they can let you go.

On the other hand, you have the right to vote, so they can't fire you for voting for any particular candidate or party. In an at-will employment state, you can be fired for anything not protected by law.

Can you do some of this thinking and research yourself for a change?

 

[Toke]

You are still skirting the issue here.
That porn is seen as amoral by some and you are apparently allowed to fire people for making it.
As you may have noticed we are some here who do not like that, see it as the leftovers of a outdated value system, and want it changed.

 

[quadraginta]

Which one was implausible - that an experienced secretary can get a job that isn't in a school, or that a porn actress flush with recent publicity can get paid a lot of money for making another porno?

You know, maybe you should just watch.

You seem to have overlooked "increasingly". Also my compliments on the plausibility of your initial entry.

I realize that these niggling little details are tedious, but it does save time if you try to pay closer attention.

I look forward with great anticipation to your future efforts.

 

[Toke]

Have anyone mentioned that she may have found out after her one movie that she prefer a job as a secretary over porn, and that sudden publicity is therefore not much good to her.

And it is still beside the point of porn as a honest trade.
It is pretty odd that making something watched by a majority? of the population should be a valid reason to fire people.

 

[Taarkin]

Doesn't mean it is bad, either.

Correct, its goodness or badness is independent of its legality. Which is why it is silly for others to dismiss objections to the firing with "Welp, it's legal, discussion over".

 

[JFrankA]

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.

I'm calling Shenanagins on you.

Your point about a porn movie being public is bullmess. Even this statement by you

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.

is itself a very big straw man and a big lie.

First off, you DO care what people do in their private lives because you feel that this woman, who made a porno, who didn't distribute it in the school, who didn't tell anyone, who didn't refuted the student that asked for her autograph, who asked that student to keep quiet about it, tried to keep it private from the school and the whole incident was made pubic because a student who isn't supposed to be on that kind of site actively looked for porn; deserves to be fired instead of saying "that stupid kid did something he shouldn't have done: find porn and betray a trust."

This woman tried to make some extra money in a way she found okay with her morals and ethics, was legal. She didn't want anyone to know, she didn't tell anyone, but, in your mind, because the product was a movie, it's not private? Really? Tell me, quick, without using an internet search engine, do you know the movies that Linda Ann Hopkins made? Hmm? No?

If in a person's private life, they decide to make a porn on the side and sell it to adults only, legally, and further, hide it from their main job, not tell anyone, sold it legally to adults who want that kind of movie and have to actually look for that kind of movie, without telling anyone else who might be offended or take it the wrong way, then it is PRIVATE.

The fact that, even if you didn't see this person's movie or want to see her movie, yet thinks it's okay to get fired because simply because she made such a movie, means that you do care. And by the way, that attitude is where the whole "punishment" issue comes into play.

So your statement "I don't give a crap what people do in their private lives" is a lie. Her side business is private. Movie or not, it is private. She didn't flaunt it in her day job.

The rest of your statement, "but making a porno for money that is intended for distribution is not private" is an utter and complete untruth and straw man. You said that owning an adult website is okay to you, because you said that owning an adult website is "private". However, you completely ignored my reply when I told you that owning an adult website is far more public than acting in any porn movie.

 

[JFrankA]

I don't. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to come up with a long list of things that can be done outside work hours that would nevertheless get you fired. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to come up with a long list of things that can be done inside your house with impunity, but if done as a show or public performance, can get you fired.

If they are legal, I can't come up with a thing.

Please. Enlighten me. What LEGAL things that I can do in a public performance that can get me fired other than acting in a porno. Certainly not owning an adult website.

My point is that you attempt to equate porn with plays, knowing that schools put on plays and are not likely to have a problem, therefore, with their employees appearing in plays.

A porn IS a play. Well, it's a movie of a play. It's just that it is not meant for children, just for adults who want to see it.

If a person performs horror magic, and this exists, where the tricks are bloody, gorey and vulgar, yet that person doesn't allow their performance to be seen by children, is that a play as well? Should that person get fired from their day job if they work with children?

 

[JFrankA]

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.

Funny, now you are making a big straw man. Remember she wasn't the one who told everyone she was in a porno, it was a teenager who activelly looked for porno, and confronted her and betrayed her trust when she asked to not tell anyone about it.

IMHO, if someone was in the KKK and applied for a job that they felt that the job wouldn't want to know that, they wouldn't put it on the resume. They would keep it private, like the secretary did.

Also, you know what? I wouldn't fire a person in the KKK just on that basis. No, I wouldn't agree with her/him, but simply being in the group doesn't mean a thing.

I also find it interesting and revealing about you that you equate something that involves hate, such as the KKK with something that expresses pleasure and fun, such as sex.....

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.

Straw man. Just getting the facts right from the people who are making assumptions....just like you are... I don't care if she was the principal, she shouldn't have been fired based on the fact that she was in a porno.

 

[jiggeryqua]

P.S. If I'm on ignore, then you're not doing it right. What part of 'ignore' don't you understand?

You're on ignore. Which part of 'someone else quoted the bit where you appeared to refer to me, thus I could see it, because that's how ignore works' don't you understand? Since I made the very generous offer to take you off ignore if you could come up with a reasonable argument, I've used the 'view post' facility to glance at your posts. Which part of 'I can read any of your posts while keeping you on ignore' don't you understand?

You're still on ignore, and I see now there's little point keeping an eye on your posts. You insist that there remains a difference between other forms of performance, and porn. There is, of course - it's the graphic representation of sex <shudder>. Nasty, dirty sex stuff, which only morally questionable adults perform in. And a woman, at that! She should know better. Of course we don't want that sort of person working within 100yds of a school, let alone actually doing a good job in one.

That said, sacking her isn't a punishment, it's an...erm...quick, I need some latin or french word for 'punishment', so I can pretend it's a bit different. Nope, no good, can't think of one. I bet you can though...

 

[BenBurch]

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?

Because it couldn't be more wrongheaded or prudish, that's why. For one thing I was talking about employment clauses. Do you think I should be able to discriminate due to religion, for example? What if she were a Satanist? If your answers differ, then you are only discriminating based on your opinion of her religion. Likewise, you have no issue with other contact sports, why is *********** any different? It is a full-contact athletic activity.

 

[LashL]

Anybody know if Canada has an equivalent to the ACLU?

Yes, it's the CCLA.

 

[dirtywick]

Yes, it's the CCLA.

Ah. That is a fairly obvious name I should have tried looking for myself.

This seems like the type of case they'd be interested in. I wonder if this woman has contacted them, or a similar organization.

 

[BenBurch]

Ah. That is a fairly obvious name I should have tried looking for myself.

This seems like the type of case they'd be interested in. I wonder if this woman has contacted them, or a similar organization.

If not, she should.

 

[Taarkin]

Consider when Gottfried got fired for his Japan/tsunami jokes, or Limbaugh got fired for his comments about McNabb, or Maher got fired for his comments about terrorists, or how Gervais certainly won't be hired again for his behavior at the Oscars. Freedom of speech, all, but if your employer doesn't like what you say or do, they can let you go.

Three out of four of those incidents were about things the employee did on the job.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Also, there is a considerable difference if you are a spokesman.