Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to cla

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

Again, NOT innocent. She still lied to get the job and to keep it. She still did the choke porn. I know, YOU think it doesn't matter, shouldn't matter. But you're wrong, it does. Every state has a morals clause for teachers. Students who are becoming teachers know this. I know that for a fact. SHE knew it, it's why she lied and left it off her application.

And no, this is not the time to bring up your debunked bit about lawn mowing.

Click to expand...

Why not? How is my lawn mowing scenario any different? I leave that off my applications, and it's not lying. Do you have evidence that she was asked if she was a pornstar or that the morals clause said she could have never been a pornstar in her life?

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

ChrisL said:

I stated my opinion and I'll state it one more time (since you guys are BORDERLINE personally attacking me - why I have no idea) and then I'm out of this thread. But anyhow I don't think it is appropriate for former or current sex industry workers to work so closely with impressionable children. Whether or not the parents are good parents or bad parents is besides the point. If the parents are not there to supervise and the children are online watching their teacher's "performances" it is NOT the fault of the child. I believe that schools should ALWAYS put the best interests of the students (ALL students - even neglected ones) before the best interests of the teachers or any staff/faculty members. That is just my opinion. It is nothing personal. :shrug: Of course, nobody has to like it, and there is nothing I can do about that.

Click to expand...

I'm not attacking you, I just kindly believe your concerns are misguided. My dissent is not an act of "hate" - I have a "logical" position on an issue and I'm posting here to articulate what I believe.

I suppose we all have our opinions and that is great - It's what makes the United States a free country (unless Obama has his imperial say)

Dissent and logical compromise built this nation of freedom.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

RabidAlpaca said:

Why not? How is my lawn mowing scenario any different? I leave that off my applications, and it's not lying. Do you have evidence that she was asked if she was a pornstar or that the morals clause said she could have never been a pornstar in her life?

Click to expand...

As explained to you, your lawn mowing is not material to the position. The application asks for previous employment, and yes the morals clause for California has been posted. Whether her actions fit in it is entirely up to the school board, the courts and the community.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

As explained to you, your lawn mowing is not material to the position. The application asks for previous employment, and yes the morals clause for California has been posted. Whether her actions fit in it is entirely up to the school board, the courts and the community.

Click to expand...

Considering she won't be ****ing on film in front of her students, I don't see how her experience as a porn star could be material either, just as I won't be mowing laws for an engineering firm. I don't remember seeing anything procluding used-to-be pornstars in the morals clause. Most of it actually seemed pretty ambiguous to me.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

RabidAlpaca said:

Considering she won't be ****ing on film in front of her students, I don't see how her experience as a porn star could be material either, just as I won't be mowing laws for an engineering firm. I don't remember seeing anything procluding used-to-be pornstars in the morals clause. Most of it actually seemed pretty ambiguous to me.

Click to expand...

Again, doesn't matter what you see or don't see. Her past as a porn star is material to her [then prospective] employment because, with teaching, there is a morals clause. She knew that going in, that's why she didn't put it in her application. And again, I'll repeat:

Whether her actions fit in it [the morals clause] is entirely up to the school board, the courts and the community.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

Again, doesn't matter what you see or don't see. Her past as a porn star is material to her [then prospective] employment because, with teaching, there is a morals clause. She knew that going in, that's why she didn't put it in her application. And again, I'll repeat:

Whether her actions fit in it [the morals clause] is entirely up to the school board, the courts and the community.

Click to expand...

The morals clause can essentially summed up as: "You can't do anything non-becoming of a teacher", which isn't retroactive. That's the entire basis of your "she's a liar" statement, and it's rather weak.

If 10 years ago I had fallen on hard times and was sucking dick in alleyways for crack money, would I be a liar if I didn't put that on my resumee while applying to be a teacher or any other job?

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

RabidAlpaca said:

The morals clause can essentially summed up as: "You can't do anything non-becoming of a teacher", which isn't retroactive. That's the entire basis of your "she's a liar" statement, and it's rather weak.

If 10 years ago I had fallen on hard times and was sucking dick in alleyways for crack money, would I be a liar if I didn't put that on my resumee while applying to be a teacher or any other job?

Click to expand...

The answer in this context is yes (for teaching only, many other jobs don't have a morals clause). You'd be omitting a material fact, that if later discovered would in all liklihood mean you would be fired.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

The answer in this context is yes (for teaching only, many other jobs don't have a morals clause). You'd be omitting a material fact, that if later discovered would in all liklihood mean you would be fired.

Click to expand...

Can we see the teacher's morals clause again? I'd like to see the part about retroactivity.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

The answer in this context is yes (for teaching only, many other jobs don't have a morals clause). You'd be omitting a material fact, that if later discovered would in all liklihood mean you would be fired.

Click to expand...

From what I can tell, this is it:

CALIFORNIA: Permanent teachers may be dismissed for immoral or unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, incompetence, evident unfitness for service, a physical or mental condition unfitting for a teacher to instruct or associate with children, persistent violation of school laws or regulations, conviction of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, or alcoholism or drug abuse rendering teacher unfit for service. Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended on the same grounds as those for dismissal or suspension.

Click to expand...

I don't see anything in there about retroactivity, so I don't see how she could've lied.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

RabidAlpaca said:

Can we see the teacher's morals clause again? I'd like to see the part about retroactivity.

Click to expand...

It's linked way back in the thread, already had to do OJ's homework for him, YOU look back for it. There's a whole deal about morals clauses in general and how they are applied legally as well as breakdown by state.

I knew about the morals clause in California because I went to college there to become a teacher. This isn't some secret info they sprung on her. She knew going in this would be a problem. Again, that's why she hid the info (guilty mind).

You know, you keep arguing as if her firing is still in question - it's not. She was fired and for this, just as others have been for similar stuff before her. You don't see the CTA running to her defense, because even the CTA is just fine with this firing.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

RabidAlpaca said:

Lol, I know what you mean. I got suspended for something my dad completely agreed with me on, but he still grounded my ass lol.

Click to expand...

yep this!!!!

this is how I explain to my daughter about fighting, i told her she is still gonna be in trouble BUT yes sometimes you have to do what you gotta do.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

It's linked way back in the thread, already had to do OJ's homework for him, YOU look back for it. There's a whole deal about morals clauses in general and how they are applied legally as well as breakdown by state.

I knew about the morals clause in California because I went to college there to become a teacher. This isn't some secret info they sprung on her. She knew going in this would be a problem. Again, that's why she hid the info (guilty mind).

You know, you keep arguing as if her firing is still in question - it's not. She was fired and for this, just as others have been for similar stuff before her. You don't see the CTA running to her defense, because even the CTA is just fine with this firing.

Click to expand...

she even acknowledges it would be a problem in one of her videos

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

ChrisL said:

I stated my opinion and I'll state it one more time (since you guys are BORDERLINE personally attacking me - why I have no idea) and then I'm out of this thread. But anyhow I don't think it is appropriate for former or current sex industry workers to work so closely with impressionable children. Whether or not the parents are good parents or bad parents is besides the point. If the parents are not there to supervise and the children are online watching their teacher's "performances" it is NOT the fault of the child. I believe that schools should ALWAYS put the best interests of the students (ALL students - even neglected ones) before the best interests of the teachers or any staff/faculty members. That is just my opinion. It is nothing personal. :shrug: Of course, nobody has to like it, and there is nothing I can do about that.

Click to expand...

I agree and the best interest of the child is to listen to the ADULT, BEHAVE and LEARN, the teachers prior LEGAL profession is MEANINGLESS.

I know its nothing personal but you do obviously have a bias and of course i apologize if you feel attacked because that was not my intention i was simply pointing out your bias in judging this woman a bias that you yourslef would accept under other circumstances.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

Again, doesn't matter what you see or don't see. Her past as a porn star is material to her [then prospective] employment because, with teaching, there is a morals clause. She knew that going in, that's why she didn't put it in her application. And again, I'll repeat:

Whether her actions fit in it [the morals clause] is entirely up to the school board, the courts and the community.

Click to expand...

Individual entities have the right to terminate a contact or intact rules that counteract civil liberties, with that said what happened without question was "legal" but was it moral (ironically)?....

This is a funky subject both legally and morally.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

It's linked way back in the thread, already had to do OJ's homework for him, YOU look back for it. There's a whole deal about morals clauses in general and how they are applied legally as well as breakdown by state.

I knew about the morals clause in California because I went to college there to become a teacher. This isn't some secret info they sprung on her. She knew going in this would be a problem. Again, that's why she hid the info (guilty mind).

You know, you keep arguing as if her firing is still in question - it's not. She was fired and for this, just as others have been for similar stuff before her. You don't see the CTA running to her defense, because even the CTA is just fine with this firing.

Click to expand...

Clearly what is done is done, but this is a debate site, and we're debating the legality and morality of it. Even in the previous morals clause links, I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that it's retroactive.

Or perhaps we can fire a teacher because he stole a candy bar back when he was 12.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

RabidAlpaca said:

From what I can tell, this is it:

CALIFORNIA: Permanent teachers may be dismissed for immoral or unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, incompetence, evident unfitness for service, a physical or mental condition unfitting for a teacher to instruct or associate with children, persistent violation of school laws or regulations, conviction of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, or alcoholism or drug abuse rendering teacher unfit for service. Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended on the same grounds as those for dismissal or suspension.

I don't see anything in there about retroactivity, so I don't see how she could've lied.

Click to expand...

The lying argument is a smokescreen.

That morals clause is ridiculously vague and subject to a wide range of interpretations, which is why some teachers can't even drink wine with dinner in some communities.

The essential question is whether having sex in front of a video camera is immoral. It does not qualify as immoral in my opinion because no one was harmed. People who base their morality on religious dogma or their revuslsion towards unconventional sexual expression can not be convinced otherwise because you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

I have known several sex workers in my life and I would trust nearly all of them with a child. But then it would not bother me if my child learned to respect people who are different.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Hard Truth said:

The lying argument is a smokescreen.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. As we all should know by now, it's often what you do and say to cover something up that sinks you. If she believed what she had done was on the up and up (in the context of later working as a middle school teacher), she wouldn't have had to cover it up.

Hard Truth said:

That morals clause is ridiculously vague and subject to a wide range of interpretations, which is why some teachers can't even drink wine with dinner in some communities.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and that's precisely on point. That allows for community standards to fill in the blanks. That would be up to local school boards.

Hard Truth said:

The essential question is whether having sex in front of a video camera is immoral. It does not qualify as immoral in my opinion because no one was harmed. People who base their morality on religious dogma or their revuslsion towards unconventional sexual expression can not be convinced otherwise because you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

Click to expand...

I think that's off a bit. The essential question is does this community want to hire as middle school teachers those who have had violent and/or humilating sex for money on camera. In this case the answer is no. I'd imagine there are folks in the community who aren't particularly religious who feel the same.

Hard Truth said:

I have known several sex workers in my life and I would trust nearly all of them with a child. But then it would not bother me if my child learned to respect people who are different.

Click to expand...

I have as well, but none of them have I ever thought for one moment, this is a person I want to be teaching my young children/grandchildren.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

RabidAlpaca said:

Clearly what is done is done, but this is a debate site, and we're debating the legality and morality of it. Even in the previous morals clause links, I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that it's retroactive.

Or perhaps we can fire a teacher because he stole a candy bar back when he was 12.

Click to expand...

If there were available videos of multiple incidents where you are stealing candy bars and then reselling them to make money (and you were 18 or older, we generally don't hold minors fully accountable), yes, indeed that would be a probability in many communities. Especially if you lied to hide it.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

RabidAlpaca said:

Clearly what is done is done, but this is a debate site, and we're debating the legality and morality of it. Even in the previous morals clause links, I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that it's retroactive.

Or perhaps we can fire a teacher because he stole a candy bar back when he was 12.

Click to expand...

he left out the part where i wanted proof she violated any contract or agreement or said clauses factually applied to her. I said IF they did then sorry about her luck but per the evidence in this threas its meaningless, so no homework was done on my behave, just ranting about his opinion after i wanted it backed up.

Until this changes her firing is indeed in question, especially in this thread.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Objective-J said:

he left out the part where i wanted proof she violated any contract or agreement or said clauses factually applied to her. I said IF they did then sorry about her luck but per the evidence in this threas its meaningless, so no homework was done on my behave, just ranting about his opinion after i wanted it backed up.

Until this changes her firing is indeed in question, especially in this thread.

Click to expand...

Look at the OP if that's what you require. The panel's determination and her firing is that proof.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

No, it's not. As we all should know, it often what you do and say to cover something up that sinks you. If she believed what she had done was on the up and up (in the context of later working as a middle school teacher), she wouldn't have had to cover it up.



Indeed, and that's precisely on point. That allows for community standards to fill in the blanks. That would be up to local school boards.



I think that's off a bit. The essential question is does this community want to hire as middle school teachers those who have had violent and/or humilating sex for money on camera. In this case the answer is no. I'd imagine there are folks in the community who aren't particularly religious who feel the same.



I have as well, but none of them have I ever thought for one moment, this is a person I want to be teaching my young children/grandchildren.

Click to expand...

She didn't tell them in advance because it was not relevant to her ability to do her job and she knew, like we all do, that she would be likely to face discrimination.

Should gays have to volunteer the fact that they were gay so it can be used against them? Would it be wrong for them to leave a job off their resume because they worked for a gay bar or organization?

So far, no one has addressed the question of gays, who until very recently were routinely fired for ALL OF THE EXACT SAME REASONS AND EXCUSES-that some people dissaprove of what they do and it would be a distraction.

The type of sex she had on-camera is immaterial, we all know she would have gotten fired even if it was soft core "couples" porn. People are using the type of sex she had to paint her as more despicable for their argument, but they still would have fired her even if it wasn't considered extreme porn.


Also, no one has addressed other scenarios that show how blurry the line of morally acceptable can be. Which of these teachers should be fired? Which should be fired for not disclosing their status?

The gay guy who is a gogo dancer in a bar on weekends? (genitals not exposed)
A woman who many people think is a porn star, but she wasn't, she just looks like a particlar one?
A former porn star that changed his/her appearnce enough so that no one knows except you, the decision maker?
A woman who was in Girls Gone Wild flashing her tits during spring break ten years ago?
The guy who used to drink too much and get into bar fights who is now sober?
A married couple who go to swing parties?
Someone who puts their picture on Craigslist looking for sexual partners? What if they didn't show their face, but someone recognizes them anyways?
A Muslim man who publicly calls the US government evil for killing and torturing Muslims?
A Muslim woman who always wears a scarf over her hair? Or one who wears even more traditional conservative Muslim clothing?
Mixed gender roommates who don't have sex with each other, but people assume that they do?
More than two mixed gender roommates who do have sex with each other?
A woman who had a baby that was conceived before she got married?
A couple who live together and have kids and aren't married?

Would your answer be different if a story in the newspaper outed these people?


I guess I've met a better class of sex workers and former sex workers that you did.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

Look at the OP if that's what you require. The panel's determination and her firing is that proof.

Click to expand...

that is simply not true :shrug:

it MAYBE true but the OP nor this thread provides any factual evidence/proof.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Objective-J said:

that is simply not true :shrug:

it MAYBE true but the OP nor this thread provides any factual evidence/proof.

Click to expand...

The FACT that she IS fired and for the reasons that she was in porn and did not disclose and lied about it, AND that firing is upheld by the panel, IS proof her behavior is not consistent with her contract. That's precisely what the determinig decision was all about.

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

clownboy said:

The FACT that she IS fired and for the reasons that she was in porn and did not disclose and lied about it, AND that firing is upheld by the panel, IS proof her behavior is not consistent with her contract. That's precisely what the determinig decision was all about.

Click to expand...

nope, thats an ASSUMPTION, this is not proof of that anywhere in this thread

Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to

Hard Truth said:

Should gays have to volunteer the fact that they were gay so it can be used against them? Would it be wrong for them to leave a job off their resume because they worked for a gay bar or organization?

Click to expand...

No, and you should have known better than to ask such a silly question. Homosexuals are a protected class and have been for longer in California than nationally. Porn stars, not so much.

Hard Truth said:

The type of sex she had on-camera is immaterial, we all know she would have gotten fired even if it was soft core "couples" porn. People are using the type of sex she had to paint her as more despicable for their argument, but they still would have fired her even if it wasn't considered extreme porn.

Click to expand...

She may have still been fired for soft porn and coverup/lies. Maybe not. We don't know that because she wasn't in soft porn. But yes, a line does exist. It's drawn by the community.

Hard Truth said:

Also, no one has addressed other scenarios that show how blurry the line of morally acceptable can be. Which of these teachers should be fired? Which should be fired for not disclosing their status?

Questions that are answered by school boards across the country with regularity. As this one was here.

The gay guy who is a gogo dancer in a bar on weekends? (genitals not exposed)
A woman who was in Girls Gone Wild flashing her tits during spring break years ago?
The guy who used to drink too much and get into bar fights who is now sober?
A married couple who go to swing parties?
Someone who puts their picture on Craigslist looking for sexual partners? What if they didn't show their face, but someone recognizes them anyways?
A Muslim man who publicly calls the US government evil for killing and torturing Muslims?
A Muslim woman who always wears a scarf over her hair? Or one who wears even more traditional conservative Muslim clothing?
Mixed gender roommates who don't have sex with each other, but people assume that they do?
More than two mixed gender roommates who do have sex with each other?
A woman who had a baby that was conceived before she got married?
A couple who live together and have kids and aren't married?

Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

Hard Truth said:

Would your answer be different if a story in the newspaper outed these people?

Click to expand...

No.

Hard Truth said:

I guess I've met a better class of sex workers and former sex workers that you did.

Click to expand...

Interesting, so now you admit there are different classes of porn/sex workers?