"... and the questions it raises about free speech rights. [Joe] Gow argued that his videos and two e-books he and his wife, Carmen, have published about their experiences in adult films are protected by the First Amendment. 'You don’t need the First Amendment to protect "The Star Spangled Banner,"' Gow’s attorney, Mark Leitner, told the committee. 'You don’t need the First Amendment to protect easy and comforting speech. It’s exactly the opposite. We need the First Amendment precisely when the danger of stifling, controversial, unpopular speech is at its highest. And that’s what we have here.'... The school is pushing to fire Gow for unethical conduct, insubordination for refusing to cooperate with an investigation and violating computer policies.... Gow has maintained that he and his wife produced the pornographic materials on their own time. He insists the videos and the books never mentioned UW-La Crosse or his role at the university...."
From
"Porn-making former University of Wisconsin campus leader argues for keeping his teaching job" (AP)." Gow, formerly chancellor of UW-La Crosse, made his argument to the personnel committee of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents.
I don't know if these free-speech arguments garnered the attention of the regents. We're told they "asked no questions."
पोस्ट्स
३८ टिप्पण्या:
“'You don’t need the First Amendment to protect "The Star Spangled Banner,"' Gow’s attorney, Mark Leitner, told the committee.”
Yes, but do you need it for “Sperms of Endearment” or “Saving Ryan's Privates”?
So the left’s position is that free speech protects pornography that even the Supreme Court has maintained is an exception to free speech. But the first amendment doesn’t protect science (alternative COVID treatments that actually work) or political ideas that challenge the entrenched powers?
If the Board of Regents figures that this guy is going to make parents hesitate to send their daughters to UW, well "free speech" is just a sideshow.
This "Happy Sexy Couple" have a YouTube channel called "Sexy Healthy Cooking!"
Tonight's dish: Professor Gow's Frickn'
With guest porn star, Will Pounder.
Now you have me thinking of all the great 90s porn parody titles.
"The Flintbones"
"Edward Penishands"
"Juranal Park"
And I had a friend who was always trying to get everyone to watch" Fatliners."
argued that his videos and two e-books he and his wife, Carmen, have published about their experiences in adult films are protected by the First Amendment.
NO ONE stopped them from Making porn.. they want to STOP him from working for the state.
isn't The Star Spangled Banner considered RACIST? and UNACCEPTABLE to modern ears?
Publish or Perish. High pressure life there at the University.
Social progress. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #TakeAKnee, ladies, and germs
What about tarnishing the reputation of the school?
We've sunk well below the lowest common denominator here.
"Gow’s hope to return to teaching in the classroom is opposed by his department chair, Linda Dickmeyer. "
There has to be a punchline in there somewhere, but I'm just not seeing one.
How is this a Free Speech case? They were not hired to produce porn. They are not forbidden to practice their craft. He is simply not fit to hold his tenured position. Good decision.
Reminds me of Ward Churchill. I think he was fired and was successful in his lawsuit after being fired by the University.
Ethics is the religion of context that has progressively been disfavored and fallen into ill repute with the popular exercise of liberal license.
What if in their free time they spent it joining Pro-Life protests, that while legal in and of themselves, were deeply offensive to some members of the University?
The lawyers could argue that what he produces is more useful than what most people at the university turn out ...
To be fair, he had a lot of time on his hands.
"We need the First Amendment precisely when the danger of stifling, controversial, unpopular speech is at its highest."
Just to tickle AA's language interests, there's a misplaced comma in that sentence that drastically changes its meaning.
It’s seems this kind of behavior is a requirement of public school hires. This or paid violent political protesting…
Somehow I see this, Pastor Robinson's predilections, and government health officials holding sex parties during covid lockdown as all related to one another. And the Epstein client list... and Sean Diddy's guest list and enablers. And RADM Levine and Pete Buttigieg and the crossdressing luggage thief whose name I can't recall off the top of my head.
Without reading any other comments - if their claims that they did it all in personal time using personal equipment (including electricity) and didn't in any way defame the university are true, [shrug] I agree with him.
Ding ding ding
Of course, "didn't defame the university" might be kind of a high bar in this instance. If they were producing, say, a travel vlog that offered advice that didn't comport with the university's official stance on leisure travel in the age of catastrophic climate change, but didn't mention their positions at the University or refer to the University in any way, well, that would seem to me to be clearly protected.
Porn, OTOH, is slippery, in so many ways.
"We need the First Amendment precisely when the danger of stifling, controversial, unpopular speech is at its highest."
This is the exact opposite of what the Democrat party is currently saying.
At least the black guy running for NC Governor was only watching porn. Not making it.
For Your Thighs Only… On Golden Blonde… Pocahotass… Sleeping Booty…
The Loin King… Snatch Adams… Schindler's Fist… Crocodile Done Me…
“I don't know if these free-speech arguments garnered the attention of the regents. We're told they "asked no questions."”
University regents haven’t given a damn about free speech in decades.
If they really want to dump him they need to make some kind of sexist/misogynist argument. Put some Women’s Science professors on the case.
@The Vault Dweller
He already would have been fired.
Well:
1: How has Grow been at protecting the free speech of conservatives on campus? Because if he wasn't offering it to others, I can see no reason why he should get it
2: I'm not sure that a chancellor of a university should be entitled to special academic freedom protections, because his job isn't to engage in academic research. So if he hasn't been a shining light for free speech for conservatives, let him hang
Ohh, I missed that
That's funny :-)
Ha, exactly.
Great catch!
You are permitted to speak. No one is compelled to have your speech associated with them.
The jury found that Ward was unfairly fired and awarded damages of 1 dollar. The damages were reversed on appeal and his reinstatement and lost wages were denied.
@Ron Winkleheimer
I think it is more likely he never would have been hired in the beginning. But assuming he snuck through the hiring process somehow he should still be protected no? I suppose one could argue making porn is an action and not speech, but that seems dangerous being able to expand lots of other thing out of speech and into actions. At least to me this feels like one of the undesired outcomes that you have to accept in order to maintain free speech as a overarching principle.
oh, I wasn't aware of that. All I saw was he got $1 in damages.
"But assuming he snuck through the hiring process somehow he should still be protected no?" Protected for what? Protected from what? The answer: No.
He can go and make as many porno cooking videos as he wants. Nobody cares. What this is really about, is a pervert sticking his thumb in society's eye.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा