> In November 2015 60 emails and phone calls called for her to be expelled. The emails went to the dean of the law school, and to the head of the student body with links to the video.
What kind of evil person does this? Is there anything these monsters can be prosecuted for? At least the people who made the movies had a motive in greed. The people who sent these emails wouldn't even gain anything. They are clearly nothing but malicious, bigoted and evil.
That part made me sick to my stomach. I’m glad these women received some financial redress, but there’s nothing that will make up for their experience.
Before the internet people had so much more room to make mistakes. It’s a tough time for young people to slip up.
I'm pretty sure they see what happens next as justice. Not that I agree with it but I imagine they feel pretty okay with the outcome given their moral beliefs.
I would take umbrage with this because I think most people would see a big distinction between 'a teen doing porn for easy cash' and 'a teen coerced into porn'. Those are miles apart in any basic value system. Though surely there are people who won't make the distinction ... I'd be pretty curious to see a data set on that one ...
Can you be more specific on why you think the people who sent emails are "evil" and deserve to be judged? And I'm talking about moral aspect here, not legal.
> They are clearly nothing but malicious, bigoted and evil.
Try to look at it this way. Jane Doe lived in a society (family, coworkers, friends) where she was respected and was considered to be good, ethical and honourable person. At the same time she wanted to play in porn. Maybe because she was just curious, or being filmed during sex was her secret fantasy (you know, it can be a big turn-on to imagine other people watch your sex), or she wanted some quick money, or something else. The problem was that playing in porn was unacceptable in her society. We don't know why they thought so, maybe their perception of sex was different from hers and they didn't like people to to it publicly, or they also had this fantasy of playing in porn but never had courage to actually do it, or something else. Whatever were the reasons of the society and of Jane, I don't judge them.
So Jane encountered this dilemma. She wants to keep the respect she has in the society, and she wants to play in porn -- two wishes are incompatible. Jane is smart, and she decides to play in porn making sure the society never finds out. It looks like a win-win sutuation for her. I hope, she realizes that there's a risk of being caught at this point.
People who film the porn promise Jane not to publish the videos online. And they break their promise. This is obviously a "bad", "evil" and immoral thing to do. I think we all agree that not keeping our promises is immoral.
Someone encounters Jane's video online, and assumes that the society Jane lives in is very likely to consider this immoral, and Jane has probably played in the video secretly. And this person has the choice: to report Jane and act in the society's interest, or not report Jane and act in her interest.
I don't think we should be concerned here with only Jane's interests, people around also have their wishes and feelings. If she's a teacher, her students parents may not want a porn actor to teach their children, and that's their preference which, I think, we should respect too. Her parents may be traditionalists and they may want to know if their daughter is doing something that they consider immoral. Jane is not the only person who has feelings here. So why shouldn't the person email Jane's friends and parents and tell them that she's lying to them?
--
You might notice that I'm writing this comment from an account I just created. When I did this I also had a choice similar to Jane's.
Most of the people around me now are strongly liberal. And when we discuss something related to women, sex and slut shaming, it's not very favorable to express anything except sorrow for women and judgement for anyone who caused them trouble. But I have many other thoughts on this subject (like the ones I expressed above about Jane), and I'm afraid my friends will not like this. So I did the same choice Jane did, I decided to do what I want secretly and anonymously.
And if somebody finds out my real name and decides to inform people I know about this terrible sexist pig they invite to parties and spend time with, I won't judge that person. They're just acting in other people's interests, not mine.
"Can you be more specific on why you think the people who sent emails are "evil" and deserve to be judged" Sure. they did something to harm another person without any real benefit to society. I know you argue that "her students parents may not want a porn actor to teach their children" but of course there is no actual harm of a porn actor teaching children. Parents only object to the idea that a porn actor is teaching their children, which might never be known if the emails were not sent. What if you were a teacher and also liked to engage in S&M. Someone takes a picture of you through your bedroom window and sends it to your school. Do you think parents want some teacher with a weird kink teaching their kids? Would you feel ok about losing your job in such a situation?
So if a murderer teaches children (never murdering them) or a fraudster, or a stripper, then that’s okay if no one knows? People avoid them for a good reason.
The image drawn in the story is far better than reality is. At least one of these “girls” was charged of theft and underage alcohol, with issued arrest warrants. You know the lack of morality doesn’t come alone, otherwise it would not be a big deal.
>Someone takes a picture of you through your bedroom window and sends it to your school
Having fun behind closed doors is normal. Doing that on camera for redistribution is not. If you were spied on, you’re a victim. If you shoot pro porn consciously, you’re blamed. Social reaction supports that de facto, that’s what this case is about. Is it that hard?
You can't really wield 'social reaction' like that.
In many western societies in 2020, for example, many people's learned reaction to loud puritanism is to casually wonder what skeletons are being so desperately hidden.
I'd be much more comfortable with my children's math teacher stripping or doing porn than being some puritanical moral crusader, just based on recent history.
No worries folks! It's just tradition around these parts to petition a university to expel an adult because a video leaked onto the internet of them having sex. They knew the risks!
It's tradition indeed. Did the adult attend the college's mandatory sexual-assault prevention program before engaging in sexual activity? Were they in compliance with the college's affirmative consent policy? Were they having sex with someone who was under the influence and therefore presumptively unable to give 'affirmative' consent? Plenty of ground for lots and lots of petitions!
> to report Jane and act in the society's interest, or not report Jane and act in her interest.
Why is it in society's interest (or rather someone's twisted representation of society) that Jane be reported? Has she killed/harmed anyone or did any damage?
> If she's a teacher, her students parents may not want a porn actor to teach their children
And some people (still) don't want to interact people of certain ethnicity, religion, disability, etc. Thankfully we have realised the stupidity of this and have laws to deal with it.
Also, if she's working, shouldn't she be judged by her performance at work, and not what happens outside?
> Her parents may be traditionalists
So what? How does this give them the right to know what's going on, and why do you consider it to be someone's moral duty to disclose it?
> So why shouldn't the person email Jane's friends and parents and tell them that she's lying to them?
Because she's lying to harm anyone or gain anything from it; nobody is getting hurt by the lie. She's "lying" because society still attaches some stupid stigma around pornography and she doesn't want the fallout on her career/relationships when people like you catch wind of this.
>Thankfully we have realised the stupidity of this and have laws to deal with it.
Why don’t they sue their colleges and parents then? Maybe there is still no law for this even on a horizon and you’re stretching things a little further than they are.
>nobody is getting hurt by the lie. She's "lying" because society still attaches some stupid stigma around pornography and she doesn't want the fallout on her career/relationships
One of them said something like “I don’t want anyone to find out since I love my bf”. In a first world country. Idk to laugh or to cry. Maybe some people deserve a society and relationships they try to build as a punishment, but not everyone.
> Why is it in society's interest (or rather someone's twisted representation of society) that Jane be reported? Has she killed/harmed anyone or did any damage?
Sorry for not making this explicit enough. What I meant by "society's interests" is interests of each individual who is related to Jane. I assume that if we approached, say, Jane's parents and asked them whether they would want to know that their daughter is doing porn, in case she is, they would say yes. This makes knowing it one of her parents' interests. The same applies to other people, like Jane's friends and colleagues.
Killing and injuring people is not the only way to harm them. Not letting people get what they want is also harm to their interests.
So reporting Jane is in the interests of those people, who want to know about it.
> And some people (still) don't want to interact people of certain ethnicity, religion, disability, etc. Thankfully we have realised the stupidity of this and have laws to deal with it.
All the characteristics you list here are the ones which people do not choose, but are born with. This is what makes it immoral to differentiate people based on these characteristics. (I'm not sure if religion should be on this list. Religion is something you could hypothetically choose, but at the same time most people don't get to choose it, they are taught from the childhood that they'll burn in hell for having doubts in it.)
But there are other characteristics like person's ideological preferences and views (this is close to religion, if you ask me) which we still can use to differentiate people, and decide whether we want to interact with them and work with them. For example, I think it's perfectly fine not to want to talk to someone if that person is sexist or racist. Being a porn performer is one of such things -- people voluntarily choose to do this, and it also tells something about their views.
> Also, if she's working, shouldn't she be judged by her performance at work, and not what happens outside?
Indeed she should.
If things happening at and outside her work are two completely unrelated areas, then I completely agree with you. For example, this is the case if she works, say, as a programmer. But I don't think the same applies for teachers. Teachers do not only teach children math, they also take part in children's upbringing -- students spend a lot of time around their teachers (especially if it's a boarding school) and they absorb many things they hear and see. And many parents may not agree with teachers attitudes to certain things, and they may not to expose their children to these attitudes.
Also, students do not live isolated from the outside world. They use internet, they talk to one another, and they may find out that their teacher does porn. So no, things happening outside of work do matter for a teacher.
> So what? How does this give them the right to know what's going on [...]?
It doesn't give them right, but it makes them want to know if the teacher is doing porn. They don't need anyone to give them right to receive an anonymous email.
> [...] why do you consider it to be someone's moral duty to disclose it?
I never said I do.
> Because she's lying to harm anyone or gain anything from it; nobody is getting hurt by the lie. She's "lying" because society still attaches some stupid stigma around pornography and she doesn't want the fallout on her career/relationships when people like you catch wind of this.
About the harm, see the first paragraphs.
I get your perspective on this. You think that the stigma people attach to porn is "stupid", therefore the people who do that are stupid too and their interests and feelings do not matter.
To me, it looks like you're trying to dismiss other opinions only because they are different from yours or because they are bad according to your ideology. More or less like members of one religion "prove" other religions wrong by refering to the scriptures of their own religion.
Being interested in something makes it “of interest” to you.
For something to be “in your interest” we mean “for your health and well-being.” In this case, there is no reason that a person’s involvement in porn is of any interest to the children and parents involved. In fact making them aware of the fact is acting against their interests by directly harming them.
If you consider that people with different tastes to yours are a hazard to children, where is the line? Is a teacher allowed to moonlight as a bartender?
OED will disagree with your remark. It says that one of the meanings of the word "interest" is "the advantage or benefit of a person or group" (see example sentences and synonyms), which is kind of what I meant by "in your interest".
Anyway, in my first comment I specified very clearly what I meant by "interest" of a person -- it was whatever the person wants. And it's very easy to find out what's in the person's interest, you just need to ask them what they want.
> In fact making them aware of the fact is acting against their interests by directly harming them.
Looks like you suggest a sweet lie instead of a bitter truth. I prefer the bitter truth.
> If you consider that people with different tastes to yours are a hazard to children, where is the line?
Again, you pretend to misinterpret what I said to make it easier to criticize.
The tastes I consider harmful to my children (future children, I should add; I don't have any yet) are not exactly equal to the tastes which are different from mine. There are plenty of things which I don't enjoy, but which I'd like my children to appreciate better. And vice versa, there are things I kind of like, but I'd want my children to be less susceptible to them.
And my point wasn't whether porn performers should teach in schools or not, it wasn't about my preferences. What I said is that some parents may prefer not to let porn performers teach their children, and we should respect their preference.
Obviously these women were victimised, but this is a completely separate issue from those 'sending emails' as those who were doing that would have been completely unaware of the mitigating circumstances and therefore operating under the assumption said women were simply 'making porn'.
You're essentially insinuating that it's 'evil' to consider that 'doing porn' is possibly inconsistent with the values of an institution of higher learning or some other org.. I hate to break it to you but such super liberal ideals are not normative, and you don't really have a right to condemn any group which concludes that 'porn' is unbecoming of someone within their own organisation.
I suggest if said 'emailers' were aware of the mitigating circumstances, they'd feel differently about it; they couldn't have known they were moralising on actual victims.
Sending emails (and any other reaction to public availability of the videos) was what actually did the lasting harm.
If you did harm then being motivated by your morality or religion doesn't justify what you did. It just explains why you did wrong and why you behaved evil.
Nope. Public relation to this did it. Sending emails did nothing, just like a person who calls the police doesn’t imprison or even judge a potential suspect.
> If you did harm then being motivated by your morality or religion doesn't justify what you did.
All morality results in harm. Good does harm to evil - that's the point. Now what is good and what is evil? It's different from people to people, culture to culture. Not only that, it changes with time.
Absolutely not. Helping others is a moral action and results in no harm (when done properly).
> Good does harm to evil - that's the point.
No. The point of mortality is to prevent harm done by evil and prevent proliferation or even existance of evil. Harming evil is just a tool to deter it. Not particularly effective tool strategically.
> Now what is good and what is evil? It's different from people to people, culture to culture. Not only that, it changes with time.
Also tools used by good and evil change with time. Even some tools switch sides.
Shaming prostitutes was probably effective tool of good when your village of 100 people was threatened by spread of incurable, untreatable, debilitating sexually transmitted disease. Shaming nowadays is mostly a tool of evil bigotery.
It might not be normative in parts of the world (even the western world) but I still have the right to hold that view and to condemn those who emailed to try destroy the woman's career as immoral (evil is a terrible term).
Regardless of your disagreement with my view I have the right to hold it. And based on recent history I'd bet I'm on the right side of history here.
You definitely have the right to have your view of her behaviour, but I think you probably have to respect that others see it differently.
Also you're probably not on the rights side of history.
I think we are becoming more tolerant of things that people do in their personal lives, but I don't think we're going to see porn normalised.
The easiest way for attractive young women (or men?) to make money is porn, and I don't suggest that any of us want our 18 year olds taking on that hobby to pay for whatever.
While most people would be 'more forgiving' I don't think for a second that most people would support their kids doing porn for cash.
Just because there's movement in some areas we may see as 'progress' doesn't mean that the needle keeps moving that way, nor does it imply things are black and white.
We're just starting to understand the social implications of young people doing porn for a few dollars at age 18 and having it follow them for the rest of our lives, I think we may start to develop a more nuanced view as time goes on.
Maybe the emailers wanted to maintain the reputation of the law school? I mean, if a law school becomes known for graduating porn actresses (even if both ex and amateur), it's reputation could diminish somewhat. Isn't there something in the law about lawyers needing to be of solid integrity (decent upstanding citizens)? Taking money to have sex with stragers while agreeing to be filmed could be seen as a demonstration of poor morals by many.
What kind of evil person does this? Is there anything these monsters can be prosecuted for? At least the people who made the movies had a motive in greed. The people who sent these emails wouldn't even gain anything. They are clearly nothing but malicious, bigoted and evil.