She did violate the terms of her contract. It might be noted that the relevant clauses were agreed to by the teachers’ union. And, were a poll to be taken now, I’m pretty sure that strong majorities of both teachers and parents approve of this enforcement. This is not a summary imposition by "the government.’
It’s still around, but that’s not vaseline coating the lens.
Checked out some of her oeuvre online, and… yeah. Not quite on the level with a secret past as a Bunny or centerfold, or even a single leaked sex tape. Pretty degrading stuff, and plenty of it (and thankfully I didn’t happen across the drink-dispensing scene to which Bricker alluded).
One day maybe we’ll be in a place where everybody shrugs at that behavior and it has no impact on a career teaching children, but we’re a long way off. Maybe it’s becoming mainstream for porn, but Main Street sure hasn’t caught up.
Here the government isn’t acting in its power as a sovereign, but as an employer. A past as a porn star is not a protected status, so as an employer, it can fire her for any reason or no reason.
Do you really think that a situation can be contained where a bunch of 14 year old kids respect a woman who they have personally seen being gangbanged and drinking semen that she expelled from her asshole? The situation is irretrievably broken and there is no other serious option but to fire her.
It could be worse. Imagine if she was caught on film harassing some poor worker at the Chik-fil-A drive thru?
You are right, the world is leaving you behind.
Out of curiosity, aside from losing all possible respect for this one particular woman, were the 14 year old damaged in any way by what they’d “personally seen?”
Of course, a discussion on whether or not viewing porn is actually harmful to minors is likely grist for another thread.
Or putting a cat in a recycling bin.
My position is that employment is not optional in our society, so it cannot be described as “consensual” hence is not like consensual sexual relationship. What does that have to do with whether or not we are “owed” a living?
Nice try, words putter inner other peoples mouthes.
Although the government has “a freer hand in regulating the speech of its employees than it has in regulating the speech of the public at large,” Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 671, 114 S.Ct. 1878, 128 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994), public employees do not lose their rights as citizens by virtue of their government employment. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 144-45, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) I believe the Connick case involves speaking out on some issue of public concern (which I’ll concede doesn’t apply here), but the basic idea is that government as employer is still government.
As for respecting the teacher, I certainly didn’t respect all my teachers, but I respected the idea that they controlled my grades. That led to some control over my expression of “disrespect.”
This thread has opened my eyes a bit. Ignorance fought. Some people, much to my surprise, think a woman who has been filed “drinking semen that she expelled from her asshole” is not an appropriate candidate to teach middle school.
Well, once we get rid of all the recycled-semen-drinking teachers, we can focus of our secondary goal - getting rid of bad teachers.
It’s all for the sake of the children!
Sure, because Marisa Tomei has not changed careers. Plus, you are presenting facts not in evidence, we do not KNOW that she went on to do another movie … but I’ll allow it, in this instance ..
Well if someone poops in public for no reason, might be an indication of mental health issues. If someone makes a porn film, however objectionable to you, it’s just a gig in her career. Apples and oranges.
Now as to these standards of behavior … they are changing. There is a growing movement to recognize sex workers as equals in our society, to end the bigotry and hatred directed toward them for no good reason. It’s all a part of that “social maturing” thing that you may have heard about. Childish fears about sex and the attitudes and laws that result from them need to go buh-bye, whether you like it or not.
I do not believe it is at all a rare one. I think it is commonly held.
Then it behooves responsible and moral individuals to help Main Street catch up.
It’s not a matter of whether we should, it is a matter that society as a whole does. I’m not saying it is a desirable state, I am saying it is the current state.
If our society as a whole were able to get over this whole puritanical streak toward sex, to look at it more casually, to not make moral judgements about it and to present it to children at an early age from a more neutral and reasonable perspective, then we would not be in a situation where the children discovering her porn past affects her status. We don’t live in that world.
Nobody wants to pay for that. They want clear images and close ups. They want to be able to see the performers’ faces.
You have a valid point - the teacher was not advocating or discussing porn. She did not bring it into the conversation or promote it. This was a case where some students became aware through their own activity.
Bullshit. You have no right to a particular job, or a particular field of employment. I can’t walk into the local hospital and demand a job as a brain surgeon because I want that kind of salary. I can’t expect Apple to make me CEO, because hey, a man’s got to eat.
She did not have an ongoing porn career. Her career ended in 2006, 6 years ago. She did have a brief overlap in careers, essentially the termination of one career as the second became financially available, but she did terminate the porn career and left it behind her. That 6 year old porn is still widely distributed does not mean her career is ongoing.
She made a bunch of movies since “Before the Devil…” So I am on safe ground.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA.
Good luck with that.
Got a timeline?
Of course not, I’m not advocating that point. I’m just saying that then need to be employed SOMEWHERE doing SOMETHING means that employment is not consensual. You are NOT entitled to a job, or allowed to pick the job you want and get it – that would make employment MORE consensual.
You are using “consensual” in a goofy manner.
I need money to live in modern society, yes. I can get that money through a variety of ways. One common way is employment of some sort. I also have the option of theft. Or, if my circumstances allow, I can obtain my money via inheritance. I also have the option of acquiring my money via lottery.
Only one case of those requires my employement for me to obtain money.
Furthermore, there is the option to be a street bum, live in a box, get by on handouts and scraps and whatnot. Apply for goverment support, or not. It isn’t a lucrative living, but some people manage it (for various definitions of manage).
Employment is an option. It is, however, the most frequently chosen course for obtaining money.
Some people’s career choices are limited by their circumstances. They may not have access to finances to allow them a college education, etc. But that doesn’t make their career choices less consensual, just limits their options to choose from.
Living off inherited income is an option for only a very few Americans. If most Americans had such a choice I would retract my contention. If life as a bum were attractive enough to be a real alternative to employment, I would retract my contention. As things stand, you sound like an ancient Roman, claiming that all slaves were slaves by choice, since they were given the option of dying versus slavery, and they “chose” slavery.
I’ll let you know when I know.
A transaction does not fail to be consensual just because one can envision a fantastical paradise where the transaction would be unnecessary. When I buy a car, the transaction is not coercive because I can imagine a world where I get the Hyundai and keep my twenty thousand dollars!
Your description of consent is beyond fatuous. The very fact that a transaction is taking place presupposes that the world is such that the parties don’t have everything that they need and want. So obviously it can be no argument to the consensual nature of the transaction to point out, well, if the parties already had those things, they wouldn’t participate in the transaction. No shit.
Coercion consists in the application of unpleasant consequences over and above those that naturally result from the chosen action. It is coercion when I tell you “Pay me ten thousand dollars, or I’ll burn your store down.” It is not coercion when I say “Stock the stuff I want to buy (or stop appearing in movies I don’t approve of), or I’m going to shop somewhere else.”
I don’t think you dispute any of this, but rather have a deeply misguided notion that your sophistry might actually be bamboozling any of the rest of us.