SO, if this is the case, anyone out there with a vindictive boy/girlfriend could end your career over a lapse in judgement & allowing them to video or photograph you having sex. Anyone else think its odd that this is exactly how Kardashian became famous?
Actually, the question was whether "her previous 'acting' career affects whether or not she can teach". You're asking a different question. That's fine ... but don't act as if I responded to something that wasn't asked.
What "other possible impediments"? Pornstars should be singled-out. Can't tell you whether somebody else should, or why there's a difference, until you tell me what they did.
The funny thing is, I don't like porn personally and I do wish it wasn't something out there. But I thought it was legal under US law. This woman wasn't selling dope or doing tricks behind the school. She took a legal job which enabled her to meet her financial commitments. The woman owed $100,000 and they are disappointed that she didn't choose bankruptcy or loan deferral to handle it (which of course would just mean a larger debt when she finally did declare bankruptcy). With that mindset I think I'm starting to understand why California has a 16 billion dollar deficit. Furthermore, this bit "Respondent's pornographic scenes may demonstrate for viewers a lack of respect for herself and may send a message that she endorses the degradation of women and deviant sexual behavior". You know, if someone went out of their way to rent a movie called "Boobaholics Anonymous 2" I don't think viewing this woman's "acting" is going to somehow degrade them further.
Gotta agree with JB on this one. Some things you just can't take back, especially in the internet age. While I do feel that porn is (and should be) a legally acceptable form of business, let's not forget that while people have the right to do porn people also have the right to be judgmental about people who do porn. California, like most states, is an "at will" work environment, and unless this gal had a specific contract that made the firing illegal it just is what it is. Twenty years ago she might have gotten away with it. Today, for better or worse, it's a miracle she made it as long as she did before getting "caught."
I do think it's sad that we live in a society where people are continually flogged for past transgressions. The internet has only made it harder to escape one's past. But let's be a little forgiving of the school board. If you ran a PR firm and found out that the guy you had hired to be your public face had been Tucker Max in a previous life, you'd probably be inclined to let him go. As liberal as Cali is, I think that the board members would have had a tough sell convincing parents that this teacher's previous life would in no way affect her ability to maintain the respect required to properly maintain a classroom of children. Just sayin'.
What is an "at will" work environment? I hate laws that protect employees just because (regardless of being negligent or lazy) but if this woman is performing her job as required, surely there is some law to protect her being fired because some uptight parent or board member disagreed with her past career decisions.
As for informing them, seeing as her past wasn't illegal, I'm unsure as to why she would even have to do that.
"At will" means you can leave a job for any reason or no reason, and you can be fired for any reason or no reason (within anti-discrimination laws, and a couple others).
There is no law protecting people from their own past. Nor should their be.
That it is legal doesn't mean you can't be fired for it. That ass-clown that YouTubed himself berating that Chick-Fil-A employee at a drive through didn't do anything illegal either ... and he got fired very quickly.
1. She engaged in acting during her period of student teaching;
2. She was allegedly dishonest during the investigation;
3. She excercised poor judgement in her choice of alternative employment (basically she could have gotten another type of employment but chose to act in pornographic film).
There is a difference between public and private life. The problem in this case arises in the fact that acting by its very nature is not private. Had she engaged in, legal, alternative behaviors within her own home or someone else's home this would not be an issue. However she chose to act in publicly available media in a manner counter to being a good role model for children.
This is a dead horse topic.
But why does it seem to me that the same people here who fight like hell to protect freedoms on firearms (gun laws) and speech (that Mohammed video) are the same ones who have no issue when the same infringements are put on freedoms of moral issues like gay marriage and sex?
I don't get it. Like that debate on what is a conservative vs a liberal. Its like the rules and definitions change depending on the issue.
I'm not looking to insult anyone with my question by the way. I just don't understand it and figured someone would have something to make sense of it.
There is a difference between government prohibition and private judgment. The government shouldn't be able to prohibit anybody from owning a gun, or performing in a porn video, or having sex with whoever they want.
The government also shouldn't intervene on behalf of a porn star to force a school to hire her as a teacher, or intervene on behalf of gay people to force a change in the definition of marriage, or intervene on behalf of gun owners to force a private property owner to allow guns on their property.
People shouldn't be prohibited by the government from living their lives as they see fit ... but also shouldn't be protected by the government from the consequences of doing so. You should be free to live the life you want, and to accept the consequences of your decisions.
The bottom line is ... don't tell me how to live my life, and don't tell me who I can and can't judge/hire/fire/etc. for how they live theirs (within reason). Both are government overreach.
You confuse me with the second paragraph. Just as the government shouldn't intervene to hire for those reasons, with the same logic, they shouldn't use it to intervene to fire solely for those reasons.
By firing her for a past decision, you are in fact telling people how to live their life and using the government to do so all based on your own personal belief in what is or is not right.
In this case, the school district is acting as an employer, not a government. They're not legislating on the subject of porn stars as teachers ... they're making an employment decision whether a porn star should be a teacher in their institution.
Firing her for a past decision is not telling her how to live, it is simply a consequence of her decision. Nobody's making her porn performance illegal. She had the choice to be a porn star or not. Her choice had repercussions. The freedom of choice is not a freedom from consequences.
It has nothing to do with what I think is right. It has to do with what her employer thinks is right, and what her pupils (and their parents) think is right, with regard to her qualification to teach. It would only have to do with my personal opinion if it were my kids' school or class.
How is that setting a precedent different than actual legislation?
Don't they have the same outcome?
If if was made into legislation she could not go to another school that would take her and get another teaching job. As it is now she is free to go and get another teaching job if she can find a school that is willing to hire her. She is free to take a job and others are free to hire or fire. Why are you so upset that everyone in the story has all these freedoms?