@BillRM,
Quote:Second I would bet large amounts of funds that a majority of those parents had porn films in their own homes so mortal outrage is somewhat amusing over the issue.
Because your computer is loaded with porn, I'm not sure that's true of everyone. And there are various types, and forms, of porn, and some may be considerably more acceptable to most people than other types. I really don't think you can lump all types of adult pornography together, or draw general conclusions about "pornography" that are at all accurate. Those who like softcore porn might be repulsed by bestiality porn. It depends what you mean when you refer to "pornography".
Just because adults view pornography doesn't mean they'd like their children to grow up to be porn stars, or want their children taught by one. Because adults view porn doesn't mean they have high regard for those who choose to make their living by appearing in it. In many states, including Florida, where you live, pornography production and pornography acting is considered legally akin to prostitution, and it can be prosecuted as prostitution. California is the only state which has made a clear legal distinction between pornography and prostitution.
Quote: It is this specific legal distinction between pornography and prostitution in California law that has allowed California to become the porn center of the United States.
At present, no other state in the United States has either implemented or accepted this legal distinction between commercial pornography performers versus prostitutes as shown in the Florida case where sex film maker Clinton Raymond McCowen, aka "Ray Guhn", was indicted on charges of "soliciting and engaging in prostitution" for his creation of pornography films which included "McCowen and his associates recruited up to 100 local men and women to participate in group sex scenes, the affidavit says." The distinction that California has in its legal determination in the Freeman decision is usually denied in most states' local prostitution laws, which do not specifically exclude performers from such inclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic_film_actor
So, for you to rather glibly say...
Quote:Somehow once more mortal outrage over porn is amusiing.........
shows your shallow understanding of the topic--there really is nothing "amusing" about it. There is a big difference between why people might consume and view porn and what they actually think of the morals and character of those who produce and star in it.
What's amusing is that you say "mortal" when you apparently meant "moral". Perhaps you should spend more time re-reading your posts for errors, and less time searching for and viewing pornography.
The "moral outrage" in the case of the teacher we are discussing has a lot to do with the issue of how a community, and a school board, views the kind of person who chooses to appear in pornographic productions, and how they see his participation in such productions as reflecting something about his own character, values, and morality, and how this "role model" might influence and affect their children in terms of what's acceptable and non-acceptable behavior. These are perfectly legitimate concerns and issues for discussions by parents and school boards.
And, in the case of this particular teacher, he wasn't upfront or honest in revealing his past participation in porn when he applied for his job, he was outed when a TV reporter ambushed him in a very public way. So, quite legitimately, parents and school boards can be concerned about this man's honesty and willingness to mislead, since omitting such controversial info concerning his recent past, can be seen as also reflecting on his character and his tendency to be deceptive.
And, if he didn't reveal his participation in those 3 porn videos, what else might he have participated in, pornography-wise, or in other areas, that he didn't bother to tell them about, that could suddenly surface in another sensational news report? Can they trust this man not to keep them involved in a continuing mess?
So I think the parents, and board of trustees, at that school have a lot to mull over and decide--and, unlike you, I would not facetiously dismiss any of it as being "amusing". These are serious moral issues for serious adults to discuss. And the decision they make will send a message to the children in that school about the values they consider important and the priorities they place on them--they are "role models" for those children too. It's not just about pornography, or how one feels about pornography, it's also about a host of more complicated issues connected with this case, and about the sorts of behavior and personal attributes that parents want reflected, or don't want reflected, in those who teach their children.
