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!"
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.
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.
Dec 29, 2023·edited Dec 29, 2023Liked by Ken White
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!"
The Board of Trustees voted to defrock him. Then they hastily voted to have him refrocked. 🫣
Oh, my God, that's disgusting! Pornographic videos online? Where? Where did he post those??
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.
Thank you for this great lawsplainer.
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.
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?
"Plenty, let me assure you."
Tell us something we don't know.
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.
Remember folks, wear masks if you're appearing in porn videos. It's just common sense.
In the words of Tom Lehrer, “I enjoy having my prurient interests aroused.”
Cancellers 1
Chancellor 0
1. The correct answer was Yale. 2. A missed opportunity for this to be you're first "for paying subscribers only" post.
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?
I remember hearing this in the 60s: Pornography is in the groin of the beholder.