Freedom of Speech my Friends...
zipman68
the speed force!
A while ago I posted that it sucks that the middle school teacher pornstar Tiffany Six got fired. I remembera lot of people saying that they supported the firing. Now a lot of folks are supporting Mr. Duck Dynasty. WTF? Why is his freedom of speech more important than porno Tiffany?
A&E is a private entity that doesn't want an excess of controversy. So they suspended the dude. Don't know if they will ultimately fire him, but that is their business. As long as everything was done legally according to the contracts I say A&E was 100% right. They actually have a moral obligation to their parent company to make money. No freedom of speech issue. Mr. Duck Dyanasty is free to find a network that will hire him. There are probably a network where being an anti-gay dude is an advantage.
Now poor Tiffany was fired by a government entity. She said she was a former pornstar. Now to be fair, she lied there:
www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=1…
So I'm down with firing her for lying. I also suspect her contract has a moral turpitude clause, so porning out WHILE teaching...neither bright nor (likely to be) consistent with her contract. But let's say she had been honest and really was a former pornstar. Should she have been fired for being a FORMER pornstar? I'm much less comfortable with that. A government agency is saying that somebody can't do something perfectly legal IN THE PAST.
to be fair, the school district probably discovered she was takin' three dicks at once on film WHILE teaching. But still...interesting thought experiment. Opinions?
A&E is a private entity that doesn't want an excess of controversy. So they suspended the dude. Don't know if they will ultimately fire him, but that is their business. As long as everything was done legally according to the contracts I say A&E was 100% right. They actually have a moral obligation to their parent company to make money. No freedom of speech issue. Mr. Duck Dyanasty is free to find a network that will hire him. There are probably a network where being an anti-gay dude is an advantage.
Now poor Tiffany was fired by a government entity. She said she was a former pornstar. Now to be fair, she lied there:
www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=1…
So I'm down with firing her for lying. I also suspect her contract has a moral turpitude clause, so porning out WHILE teaching...neither bright nor (likely to be) consistent with her contract. But let's say she had been honest and really was a former pornstar. Should she have been fired for being a FORMER pornstar? I'm much less comfortable with that. A government agency is saying that somebody can't do something perfectly legal IN THE PAST.
to be fair, the school district probably discovered she was takin' three dicks at once on film WHILE teaching. But still...interesting thought experiment. Opinions?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
18 comments
On the other hand Tiffany worked HARD for her money. That babe too a dick in each hole like a champ. AT THE SAME TIME!!!
Isn't that the work ethic we want in our teachers?
But teaching student that they need to respect the position of teacher even if they've seen film of her takin' a cock up the pooper might be good for the kids. Overall we need to be less uptight
I say anything that gets more hot chicks to take it up the ass, on film or otherwise, is soopah-groove-EE!!!!
That being said, if I had children I would not want her near them!
How about dancers? Lots of them are moms and some are really good moms.
I'm very vocal about my opinion that teachers should be better paid so I have no issue with saying they should be held to high standards of conduct.
I agree if she told the truth during the hiring process and the school hired her. She should still be teaching. because like people have stated it was a legal profession, between consenting adults, and she told the truth. Case closed. School couldn't fire her because she told the truth and didn't lie on the application. But I could see how she would have a hard time with parents and students keeping a classroom in check. Like when you mentioned they could find a film with her taking it from 7 different cocks all at once....LOL
Now people saying she is a threat to children, etc. I don't think so. It is still the old stigmatism of sex work in general....Not prostitution...but nude modeling, stripping, legal porn acting. People view sex as dirty and should be whispered about and only talked about in the bedroom or at a stag party.
But agree with the freedom of personal choice that is with our country. Just like the other thread....the guy is saying and preaching his beliefs and his personal choices. if nothing contractual was broken...A&E could be in world of hurt...again "if" nothing contractual was broken.
@crsm27 -- to be fair, I've only seen a video with her taking 3 cocks at once. Do more dudes join in later? not like i've watched the *whole* video. If you've seen a more extensive gangbang...DON'T BOGART THE PORN my friend. Let's have a link!
Wait, I know how to get rehired...maybe there should be a rule like "max # of cocks is set by # of holes normally used for sex -- if you've got a dick in each hole & dudes are standing around waiting their turn you've crossed a line". Would work if she's never actually had a 7 cock gangbang...
Seriously though, i would like to see government entities held to a higher standard regarding their regulation of private behavior. The first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The spirit of the law, in my opinion, is that the government lays off our freedoms. I have no issue with a private entity having contractual obligations that you not say certain things. I suspect A&E knows whether they can suspend given their contract.
I just don't have much sympathy for the Duck Dynasty dude -- if he feels aggrieved -- since it was private entities having a dispute. However, the dude may have actually wanted out of his contract and decided not to self-censor. Could actually increase appearance fees for audiences that agree with him. I have more sympathy for Tiffany (or would if she hadn't lied).
The one difference between KKK and pornstar is that -- if you believe what the KKK believes -- non-whites are inferior. If that translated to unequal grading or treatment it would interfere with her job. Pornstar isn't associated with a similar ideology that could interfere with the duties of being a teacher (except discipline issues). Under 18 kids shouldn't be looking at porn so basically teaching them that they have to respect her could actually be a positive (in a perfect wold -- not so much in the real world).
If Tiffany were an active KKK member but kept it private and there is zero evidence she was grading unfairly I'd support her staying on. That's a tougher call. Remember, I altered Tiffany's case to pose a hypothetical. I don't have a problem with her being fired for actively filming gangbangs as a teacher (likely contrary to her contract) and then lying about it. Plus, if a person actually believes KKK ideology one would expect unequal treatment. Said teacher should be fired for that. If she's an *active* KKK member she probably believes what they sell.
If she was former KKK but then rejected KKK ideology, zero problem. Again, if students found out it could be a "teachable moment".
To make it concrete, I remember a documentary that showed a pre-teen neo-Nazi group called Prussian Blue. Apparently, the have given up being neo-Nazis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Bl…
If those girls wanted to teach or do something else, shouldn't the question be "will they be unfair to non-whites now?" and not "were they ever Nazis?" (Easier in their case since they were under 18 when they were Nazis, but still...)