[clay_the_ripper]

This is totally unsurprising, but an interesting example of how people are expected to conform to “normal” behaviors. People that fall outside this narrow definition of what’s acceptable are still labeled “deviants” which is basically what the university is saying.

Also, the first amendment applies to the government restricting speech. A university is not the government so they are free to say that to be employed by the university you must not also do porn.

Bold moves by this guy, way to go in not being ashamed of who you are.

[Isamu]

I think to a university administrator, money is paramount. So they are worried about donors, they are worried about alumni, they are worried about state and federal funds, and they are worried about the attitudes of the parents of prospective students.

Free speech on campus is a very distant concern, to be taken out and dusted off when there’s no real money at stake.

[popcalc]

>Bold moves by this guy, way to go in not being ashamed of who you are.

Is porn-star an identity? It's a job. Some people sort trash, others fill Jira tickets, and others record themselves nude. Like drug dealing, it's highly profitable because the risk is built into the compensation. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If our society was A-OK with this then there would be no money in it.

[redeux]

It can be both right? Some people get paid as software developers because they love to build things. Some people post themselves having sex because they love exhibition or because they consider it art. Either way, what should it matter? It’s not illegal and nobody is forcing you to watch it.

[popcalc]

I don't see why he would be ashamed? It's a calculated risk is all I'm saying. He knew maybe in the back of his mind it could blow up.

>what should it matter?

University donors don't like it. That's all. They have the right to feel that way.

[redeux]

I don’t find that to be a compelling argument. Donors, investors, employers, and governments should not have a right to tell us how to behave in our personal lives. If he was recording his videos with university resources, on university time, or while claiming to represent the university then sure. Otherwise it’s just people trying to enforce their version of morality on others, and we should all reject that.

[popcalc]

Do you think the Catholic Church doesn’t have the right to force their version of morality on priests? Grow up.

[bachmeier]

> Also, the first amendment applies to the government restricting speech. A university is not the government so they are free to say that to be employed by the university you must not also do porn.

That's only true for private universities. Public universities are bound by the first amendment, and there are many examples of it. One example from my university happened in 2020, when a student posted a disgusting tweet about George Floyd, but the university knew it could not do anything to the student that would be considered punishment: https://fox4kc.com/news/kansas-state-will-not-expel-student-...

[sameoldtune]

This is a shame that many gay people in professional spaces have to deal with every day. Sure sexual orientation is a protected class. But who on the HR team, the C-suite, your senior engineering team, etc. secretly thinks you’re a disgusting sexual deviant? That your voice is “unprofessional”? There are activities that are completely normal in gay circles that would get you put on HR’s shortlist if you ever mentioned them. Makes the whole “bring your whole self to work” business laughable. Only if your whole self happens to be completely white-bread WASPy Lexapro-laden cold soup.

[quantified]

Is that set of activities specifically related to sex/love, or are they more of a circle/subculture thing? Heterosexuals can engage in a variety of loving and erotic activities and some of them would be looked on with disapproval in a vanilla work world, even if they're not super unusual. Gays might have activities that are only possible because they're with the same sex, or they might have activities that heteros could also do but don't. (I'm going to self-censor on asking whether activity X or activity Y would count in your assessment.)

[jmercouris]

Your point was lost when you condemned individuals on Lexapro. Are you suggesting that individuals on Lexapro are lesser? Worse?