124 Comments
User's avatar
Khal Spencer, Ph.D.'s avatar

When a university claims to be providing a seminal experience for its students and faculty, I don't think this is what they had in mind.

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

I may have misread this, but what I got from it is: If you're a University Chancellor who wants to make some money on the side through porn videos with your wife, it's important to periodically call out, "My God, we need to raise the marginal tax rate on top-income earners!" Wouldn't hurt if your wife threw in a "Oh, baby, gimme that single-payer health care!"

Expand full comment
Ken White's avatar

You read like a client

Expand full comment
Bob Relyea's avatar

You have to do that *and* work for a University where all the donors actively support the porn industry (UNLV?).

Expand full comment
C.L.'s avatar

Next stop for Joe Gow's academic career: Cal State, Fullerton, located in beautiful Orange County aka America's Porn Paradise!

https://www.ocweekly.com/americas-porn-paradise-6425578/

Expand full comment
Sean Phillips's avatar

The Board of Trustees voted to defrock him. Then they hastily voted to have him refrocked. 🫣

Expand full comment
HoyaGoon's avatar

Oh, my God, that's disgusting! Pornographic videos online? Where? Where did he post those??

Expand full comment
Perry Borenstein's avatar

Is this the actual site?

Expand full comment
JiSK's avatar

Yes

Expand full comment
Perry Borenstein's avatar

Nothing against a little pornography, but it’s got to be worth my while. Are they doing a Cirque de Soleil aerial routine? A reenactment of a civil war battle or the signing of the SALT treaty? Something? Anything? I mean, after a while penises all start to look alike. I once saw an off broadway show in New York City where the men on stage performed feats of strength with their testicles. And I’m not making that up. (Think tug-of-war and walking up and down the aisles with weights.) For anyone who’s lived in New York, it’s got to be more than nudity. Maybe he was fired for being boring.

Expand full comment
Beth's avatar

Made me laugh

Expand full comment
David M Levinson ⁂'s avatar

Surely he is in violation of his terms of employment regarding outside activities not being disclosed. (Since he posted it on a for-profit site) As mere academic staff, if I take a consulting gig, or drive an Uber, or even serve on a non-profit board, I am expected to disclose. These are routinely approved, but if I didn't disclose or it wasn't approved that would be a problem. I would imagine and expect a University President has a higher standard for this. I imagine there would be exceptions for auto-ethnographic studies of University Administrators in the porn sector. His research record suggests that wasn't going to happen.

Expand full comment
KN in NC's avatar

Special points for “auto-ethnographic studies of University Administrators in the porn sector”

Expand full comment
Bluchek Mark's avatar

In addition the outside activity generally needs to be approved by one’s department chair, dean, or supervisor and cannot be so time-consuming as to interfere with one’s job performance. Since he’s President, I guess that would entail needing approval of the Regents (which seems unlikely in this instance). If they did all their porn production while they were taking annual leave, there might be a little wiggle room. But that might be difficult to document convincingly.

Expand full comment
JiSK's avatar

The videos were not published there originally. I'm not sure where they were until recently, though.

Expand full comment
Mitchell Epner's avatar

Thank you for this great lawsplainer.

Expand full comment
Gibran Chavez-Gudino's avatar

Thank you Ken. As soon as I saw it his story break I was like, excellent - this guy should apply for the Nevada System of Higher Education Chancelloship (UNLV is part of the system). Real talk, we need a chancellor here with flexible qualities.

Expand full comment
Alex's avatar

A friend of mine who used to teach at UW-La Crosse suggested that his behavior was so odd in general that most people who spent any significant amount of time there wouldn't be particularly surprised by this turn of events (though not necessarily this exact circumstance). Is it possible that establishing a pattern of behavior, with this merely being the tipping point, would give the university a stronger legal position to justify his firing?

Expand full comment
Christy T's avatar

The NYT reported that in 2018, he invited a porn actress to speak about porn and had the school pay for her travel without being transparent about who she was. The school reprimanded him for poor judgment and he repaid the school for the expenses. It would seem he could have anticipated this result.

Expand full comment
Dr. Leo Marvin's avatar

"Plenty, let me assure you."

Tell us something we don't know.

Expand full comment
Mark Kernes's avatar

As an attorney, you should understand that "obscenity" is a null concept. Nothing in the First Amendment allows for an exception for "obscenity," and similar to Potter Stewart's comment about pornography—"I know it when I see it"—NO ONE can know beforehand if the sexually explicit content they are creating or selling passes the so-called "Miller test," which really isn't a test at all. That "test" talks about "community Standards" and an "average person," but such things do not exist. When was the last time you (or nearly anyone else you know) has ever discussed with their neighbor what they like to do in the bedroom? If no such discussion took place, how is this proverbial "average person" supposed to know what the "community standard" is? And remember, judges caution jurors in obscenity cases that they may not apply their own personal standards regarding the material on trial; they must apply the so-called "community standard" which they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT in reality. In other words, obscenity laws are bullshit.

Expand full comment
UndeniableOptimism's avatar

There are lots of things in the law that are dumb bullshit, but they're still the actual law.

Expand full comment
smilerz's avatar

You seem to be confusing what you think the law should be with what the law actually is.

Expand full comment
Mark Kernes's avatar

Obscenity laws are in direct opposition to the First Amendment, so it's the obscenity laws that are "illegal" under the Constitution

Expand full comment
smilerz's avatar

Looks like you make the same mistake again.

Expand full comment
Eric Snyder's avatar

Remember folks, wear masks if you're appearing in porn videos. It's just common sense.

Expand full comment
Leslie J's avatar

Because the grandkids could be watching. 🙄

Expand full comment
Evgeny's avatar

You mean "would"

Expand full comment
IainB's avatar

In the words of Tom Lehrer, “I enjoy having my prurient interests aroused.”

Expand full comment
Gary Mengel's avatar

Jurisprurience?

Expand full comment
The Digital Entomologist's avatar

Cancellers 1

Chancellor 0

Expand full comment
SteveB's avatar

Gosh, where's Bari Weiss when you need her?

Expand full comment
manwithnoplan's avatar

1. The correct answer was Yale. 2. A missed opportunity for this to be you're first "for paying subscribers only" post.

Expand full comment
Chris Curtis's avatar

Is it relevant that Roe v. City of San Diego specifically called out that Roe "took deliberate steps to link his videos and other wares to his police work", and thus fell outside the broad protection, or do you have to go through the matter-of-public-interest prong first? That seems backwards, at least in the what-the-law-should-be sense.

And would it be relevant whether there's a prohibiting clause in their employment contracts, or does that also only come in after you go through the public-interest test?

Expand full comment
Ken White's avatar

You first have to do the public interest prong. The linking-to-your-work is relevant to the first prong (whether it was on the job) and the balancing test (the implied endorsement).

Expand full comment
WillRavenel THE STROBIS WEAKLY's avatar

I remember hearing this in the 60s: Pornography is in the groin of the beholder.

Expand full comment