Merged School Secretary Persecuted For Making Porn

[JFrankA]

...also, why is it assumed that porno has to be a bad production?

Yes, safe for work.


http://youtu.be/4VkZwV1v5ZE

 

[BenBurch]

JFrankA - See also "Cafe Flesh"

 

[sgtbaker]

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.

Every time you mention that, I get fired up enough to want to smack the little brat that exposed her private life like that. That was devious and cruel. If I was the mother of that kid, I would be on every news station, apologizing for him and guaranteeing that not only does he lose internet, indefinitely, but he will be paying for restitution.

 

[quadraginta]

Every time you mention that, I get fired up enough to want to smack the little brat that exposed her private life like that. That was devious and cruel. If I was the mother of that kid, I would be on every news station, apologizing for him and guaranteeing that not only does he lose internet, indefinitely, but he will be paying for restitution.

If he did misrepresent himself to access an "adult" site then he should obviously be charged and convicted of criminal fraud.

Under the circumstances it would only seem appropriate that he be tried as an adult.

Since as an adult he communicated this filth to a minor (himself) he should also be charged for that and convicted as a sexual predator. Then he would be forbidden by law to go near schools or associate with minors ... including himself.

It's the only decent thing to do!

Think of the children!

 

[AvalonXQ]

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?

Oh, entirely. There's no question in my mind that they were wrong to fire her.
But do agree with Maus that the termination doesn't appear to be an attempt at retaliation or punishment on the part of the school board. Her continued employment is awkward for them, so they want to end it; I don't think they should, but even if they do I still don't think they intend it as punishment.

 

[sgtbaker]

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.

Don't you get it? They are thinking of the children. They are protecting them from the naughty stuff that they are not supposed to see even though at least one child did see the naughty stuff, independed of the person who they are protecting them from. It makes perfect sense if you don't think about it.

 

[JFrankA]

Every time you mention that, I get fired up enough to want to smack the little brat that exposed her private life like that. That was devious and cruel. If I was the mother of that kid, I would be on every news station, apologizing for him and guaranteeing that not only does he lose internet, indefinitely, but he will be paying for restitution.

I completely and utterly agree with you.

This is incredibly infuriating to me:

The student who outed her was suspended by the school administrators for creating a Facebook page in her name.

Don't punish the teenager for betraying (and ruining) someone's private life, but give him a few days off from school for making a false Facebook page....

IMHO, if the school, actually had any "mission and values", they should not have fired the secretary at all. By firing her, they given the message to all teenagers in their school that you can ruin someone's private life and all you get is a slap on the hand.

"Mission and values"? Where?

 

[JFrankA]

Oh, entirely. There's no question in my mind that they were wrong to fire her.
But do agree with Maus that the termination doesn't appear to be an attempt at retaliation or punishment on the part of the school board. Her continued employment is awkward for them, so they want to end it; I don't think they should, but even if they do I still don't think they intend it as punishment.

"I was ready to accept a lot of things because my professional life matters more than my life as a porn star," she said in an interview.

...

"I understand them and they understand me, but we couldn't find an agreement," she said. "Had I agreed to their conditions, I would have basically been prevented from going out and being photographed. This is absurd."

The head of the school board, Leopold Castonguay, said Ardente's after-hours exploits went against the school's mission and values.

I'm sorry, a condition to "prevent from being photographed"? REALLY?

That sounds like a punishment to me. They certainly didn't tell the student "don't betray anyone else's trust".....

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm sorry, a condition to "prevent from being photographed"? REALLY?

That sounds like a punishment to me.

It sounds like an unreasonable condition to me, certainly. Although I'd want to actually read the wording of the conditions; my guess is that the intent of the condition was something significantly narrower than that, but that it wasn't phrased narrowly and she read it as probably applying to any photographs taken of her.

Again, though, unreasonable conditions do not imply an intent to punish. Harm does not imply an intent to punish.
Here's an example of what I mean: I get a speeding ticket, and the following month my insurance premiums increase by $100. This certainly harms me as a response to my behavior. However, the insurance company doesn't have any interest in punishing me. My worse driving record just puts me in a category that is more expensive to insure, and so I am harmed as a result of my actions.
At the same time, I had to pay a $100 fine for my speeding ticket. This is exactly the same harm to me as the raise in premiums, but this is actually a punishment for my behavior. The intent is to punish me, and others who speed, creating a punitive consequence for speeding that will discourage it. The harm is exactly the same (I have to pay $100 more), but one is intended as a punishment while the other is a business decision without any punishing intent behind it.
A lot of people here seems to think "X performed action A, and as a consequence of A, Y then did something that harms X" is sufficient to conclude that "Y is punishing X for A". I disagree with that, for the reasons above.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It sounds like an unreasonable condition to me, certainly. Although I'd want to actually read the wording of the conditions; my guess is that the intent of the condition was something significantly narrower than that, but that it wasn't phrased narrowly and she read it as probably applying to any photographs taken of her.

That or the people drafting the condition were well aware that it was incredibly onerous but that it sounded enough like a restriction on porn work that they could stick it in there.

Again, though, unreasonable conditions do not imply an intent to punish. Harm does not imply an intent to punish.
Here's an example of what I mean: I get a speeding ticket, and the following month my insurance premiums increase by $100. This certainly harms me as a response to my behavior. However, the insurance company doesn't have any interest in punishing me. My worse driving record just puts me in a category that is more expensive to insure, and so I am harmed as a result of my actions.
At the same time, I had to pay a $100 fine for my speeding ticket. This is exactly the same harm to me as the raise in premiums, but this is actually a punishment for my behavior. The intent is to punish me, and others who speed, creating a punitive consequence for speeding that will discourage it. The harm is exactly the same (I have to pay $100 more), but one is intended as a punishment while the other is a business decision without any punishing intent behind it.
A lot of people here seems to think "X performed action A, and as a consequence of A, Y then did something that harms X" is sufficient to conclude that "Y is punishing X for A". I disagree with that, for the reasons above.

I'm not arguing against this semantic point, I just don't see how you plan to make it relevant to the actual discussion in progress.

If it's going to be relevant you must have some argument in mind of the form "X is not punishment and therefore Y", and I really have difficulty seeing what Y is going to be that follows logically and makes some difference to how we should view this case.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

What you do in your home life should never, ever, impact your work life. If she's not exposing the children to her second job, who is she harming?

This reminds me of the people fired because bosses troll facebook and don't like what they see. When did this kind of invasion of privacy become acceptable? I swear we're 3 steps shy of having Company Towns again.

 

[JFrankA]

It sounds like an unreasonable condition to me, certainly. Although I'd want to actually read the wording of the conditions; my guess is that the intent of the condition was something significantly narrower than that, but that it wasn't phrased narrowly and she read it as probably applying to any photographs taken of her.

Again, though, unreasonable conditions do not imply an intent to punish. Harm does not imply an intent to punish.
Here's an example of what I mean: I get a speeding ticket, and the following month my insurance premiums increase by $100. This certainly harms me as a response to my behavior. However, the insurance company doesn't have any interest in punishing me. My worse driving record just puts me in a category that is more expensive to insure, and so I am harmed as a result of my actions.
At the same time, I had to pay a $100 fine for my speeding ticket. This is exactly the same harm to me as the raise in premiums, but this is actually a punishment for my behavior. The intent is to punish me, and others who speed, creating a punitive consequence for speeding that will discourage it. The harm is exactly the same (I have to pay $100 more), but one is intended as a punishment while the other is a business decision without any punishing intent behind it.
A lot of people here seems to think "X performed action A, and as a consequence of A, Y then did something that harms X" is sufficient to conclude that "Y is punishing X for A". I disagree with that, for the reasons above.

I see what you are saying, and in fact, agree with you for the most part.

The point is this: after she agreed not to do porn again, after she agreed to relocate and start afresh at a new school in a new location, after she agreed to leave a job she worked at for nine years and a city she called home for at least that amount of time, they still demanded more out of her. Particularly noted, a condition that she just could not possibly keep or completely quit her job and find another.

Whereas the boy who actually did something wrong (betray a trust, post someone's else identity on a social network page without that person's permission), gets a few days off of school.

I'm sorry, AvalonXQ, this really sounds to me like there was an attitude of "let's get the porno star and make an example of her". That attitude, in itself, is a punishment not just to her, but all who "dare try to do what she did".

 

[Rasmus]

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,

Funny that you should feel the need to point that out as if it was something special or out of the ordinary. And what difference does it make that the kid maybe shouldn't have watched the film? Anybody else could have seen it, too.


</i>

and confronted her and betrayed her trust when she asked to not tell anyone about it.

Uh .... no. Just plain no.

The kid is under no obligation whatsoever to not tell anyone what he saw. She can *ask* all she like, but she has no right to expect him to comply. He is free to tell the world what he saw.

Nobody forced her to do something that she was ashamed of and didn't anyone else to know. That was her decision and people finding out about it is the risk she took. Tough luck.

In fact, it is extremely unfair to know hold the kid responsible. He did not force her to act in a porno, nor he did he fire her. He saw a freely available film and talked about it. There was no trust to be betrayed because it wasn't anything like the teacher telling him a secret, was it?

Did he sign an enforceable NDA?

What did she expect? That nobody would ever watch the film, or that somehow the area in which she lives was populated only by people who wouldn't watch porn?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Funny that you should feel the need to point that out as if it was something special or out of the ordinary. And what difference does it make that the kid maybe shouldn't have watched the film? Anybody else could have seen it, too.

The problem isn't that he saw a porno. The problem is he saw an opportunity, in this case a chance to make life difficult for someone - an adult, a figure of some authority at his school. Maybe he's a model pupil, maybe he's a 14yo adolescent with authority issues and some very confused ideas aout female sexuality. Who knows.
Anybody else could have seen it. We're only really interested in her colleagues and the other students or their parents, of course, but any one of them could have seen it. Imagine for a moment you're a member of the school community. Would you have made her life difficult too? Would that be the right thing to do?

Uh .... no. Just plain no.

Top marks.

The kid is under no obligation whatsoever to not tell anyone what he saw. She can *ask* all she like, but she has no right to expect him to comply. He is free to tell the world what he saw.

And somewhere in the world he might find likeminded people who also see porn, and by extension female sexuality, as something shameful that should be punished. He found some at the school. We've found some here.

Nobody forced her to do something that she was ashamed of and didn't anyone else to know. That was her decision and people finding out about it is the risk she took. Tough luck.

Do you know why she had a second career? Was it just greed and lust, or was she experiencing economic difficulties outside her control (for example)?

In fact, it is extremely unfair to know hold the kid responsible. He did not force her to act in a porno, nor he did he fire her. He saw a freely available film and talked about it. There was no trust to be betrayed because it wasn't anything like the teacher telling him a secret, was it?

Nobody forced him to do something that he should be ashamed of (not 'watching porn', I mean getting her sacked). That was his decision. He saw a freely available film (that he shouldn't have viewed). He saw an opportunity to act like an ass and make life difficult for an adult. Tough luck on her. His luck was in - he got what he wanted.

Did he sign an enforceable NDA?

No. Have you signed an enforcable agreement not to be an ass? Was any part of his education not concerned with being somewhat less than an ass in his community? How about yours?

What did she expect? That nobody would ever watch the film, or that somehow the area in which she lives was populated only by people who wouldn't watch porn?

She expected disclosure to be troublesome, evidently. Not because she's done something illegal, but because she was apparantly aware there are parts of society that take a dim view of legal activities in which otherwise 'respectable' women reveal that they aren't as hung-up about female sexuality as they should be. Maybe she expected him to be somewhat less than an ass. She was sorely disappointed....and sacked.

I realise there's more than 40 posts, but would you mind appraising yourself of the development of the arguments in the thread before obliging others to rehash them for you?

 

[Jorghnassen]

An update on the story.

Allegedly the 14 y.o. wanted more than an autograph and made some more serious threats...

 

[Roadtoad]

An update on the story.

Allegedly the 14 y.o. wanted more than an autograph and made some more serious threats...

So, in response, the school punishes the secretary. Wow, that was...

Stupid.

 

[Toke]

And the poor little kid got suspended 2 weeks for a bit of blackmail?

 

[JFrankA]

An update on the story.

Allegedly the 14 y.o. wanted more than an autograph and made some more serious threats...

So, in response, the school punishes the secretary. Wow, that was...

Stupid.

And the poor little kid got suspended 2 weeks for a bit of blackmail?

This is the point I was trying to make all along, now, in lieu of this information (if it's true) then it seems to me that the kid got a wrist slap for successfully blackmailing the secretary. She lost her job, possibly her career and had something she wanted to keep secret be totally exposed to everyone while he got a two week vacation from school. Yet she did nothing wrong nor illegal.

 

[Roadtoad]

This is the point I was trying to make all along, now, in lieu of this information (if it's true) then it seems to me that the kid got a wrist slap for successfully blackmailing the secretary. She lost her job, possibly her career and had something she wanted to keep secret be totally exposed to everyone while he got a two week vacation from school. Yet she did nothing wrong nor illegal.

I agree. Blackmail is generally considered a serious crime in the US. That all he got was a two week suspension is an insult, considering this woman has now lost her job, and the benefits that go with it. I don't know how the school district is going to reconcile this once it hits a courtroom.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Here's my favorite part:

Ardente told Adler she tried to launch a police investigation, but was told by cops in Quebec that it wasn’t a criminal matter.

The boy threatened her preteen daughter unless she gave him a blowjob, and she had the gall to go to the cops? That's ridiculous. Don't they have speed traps to man and illegal downloading to go after?
I can't have the cops worrying about stuff like this while there are still secretaries out there inappropriately moonlighting as legal workers in other industries!