No. We seem to believe that you’ve offered no evidence that these pictures were for sexual gratification of the teacher, given the long tradition of artists’ models not getting turned on by their work.
Daniel
Google had them cached under the Save Manny blog url, looks like the cache has changed…
And on a different note, isn’t Texas an “At Will” state with regards to employment?
Doesn’t matter if there was an employment contract. “At Will” applies to situations where there is no contract or union involved.
OK, thanks. I wondered about the teacher’s union, but wasn’t sure.
My unreserved apologies to Unregistered Bull, for some reason I was thinking we were in the pit. I’d report myself, only I’ve just discovered something interesting: there’s no “report bad post” button for your own posts.
So, if this lady had acted in a hardcore pornographic film for European market, distributed it publically, and the film became common knowledge amongst school officials, then since she didn’t receive any sexual gratification, she wouldn’t get in trouble?
LOL. Handcuffed hands, dog collars, nudity, arms stretched above her head, a feigned look of fear. That’s a bondage shot partner.
Since the direct shots of her genital area were in shadows, I’ll let you get by with your argument. I picked it up from another poster here anyway. But arguing against the bondage aspect is just, well it’s just plain silly.
But is the intent pornographic? PETA activists have appeared in public caged, naked and in chains in order to draw attention to the plight of some zoo animals and elephants in Asia. It looks awfully bondage-y but I doubt if many people would argue that it’s bondage porn. That’s kinda the way I feel about the photos.
Why don’t you answer that question for yourself: do YOU believe the quoted section of the contract would apply to that situation? There is an objectively correct answer to the question, based on the quoted section of the contract.
Daniel
Moderator’s Note: Well, be more careful of which forum you’re in and don’t do it again.
As for the SDMB management, all I did was make the URL not be a live link. You can still copy and paste it into a new browser. (That the pictures may not even still be on that web page is obviously a whole different issue.) FWIW, I would say this policy is more akin to saying “you can’t post those [artistic nude] pictures of yourself in the classroom” than saying “you can’t post those [artistic nude] pictures of yourself anywhere on the Internet” (without being fired).
Incidentally, this topic has been around for over a week, and it occurs to me that the title is wrong.
Obviously teachers can go topless; the question is: May a teacher go topless?
But I guess she’s a math teacher not a grammar teacher, so we’ll let it pass this time.
Actually, she’s an art teacher, not a math teacher. But you’re a moderator, not Cecil Adams, so we’ll let it pass this time ;).
Daniel
Math, art–not English. She not English teacher! She teacher of Not-English!
Why the hell did I think she was a math teacher?
:Shakes fist at Gaudere:
Well, I did consider alternatives, such as:
- Tell ol’payroll, “Let my Titties Go”
- TEXAS…has an Artist in it (Lord have mercy on our soul)
- Hey, Teacher, thanks for the mammaries
Oh, wow. That had me rollin’.
This has come up before. They management has suggested reporting the post above yours and mentioning what you are reporting in the body of the email.
Transcript of radio show interview from June 20 :
Harrumph. Think this thread contains a much higher level of discourse than that transcript.
Same reason I thought I was in the pit 