Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "University of Wisconsin-La Crosse chancellor terminated after being asked about adult videos" video.

  1. ​ @ihatecrackhead  If this were "obscene," it could be seized and very likely prosecuted. In law, that is a technical term. State employees do have some First Amendment rights that those in the private sector do not.
    4
  2. @kevinstaggs5048  I don't view this stuff, so my standard is worse, better, or same as Boogie Nights, leaving aside Lars von Trier and other European cinema. We don't know how bad this was. Hugh Hefner became celebrated. I don't care for Playboy, either, but . . . Involvement with that doesn't disqualify anyone for pretty much any job involving adults. In today's rainbow flag days, this might be quaint.
    3
  3.  @jameswarner7435  Beautifully stated. Made my day.
    3
  4. Not if they actually do conflict with constitutional law they don't. This is a state employer, not a private one. The rules are not identical.
    3
  5. ​ @Businessentials  Just another word that's lost its meaning. :/
    3
  6. Look, if this were a court case, there is no doubt that the jury would have to view the material to see whether it is "inappropriate," "abhorrent," or "unbecoming for someone in a leadership position." At a state university, the First Amendment does apply. It's hardly certain that the law doesn't favor him until it's put to the test. I simply don't believe anyone about anything until I see for myself. That said, I'm not on his jury and don't plan to scare up the evidence.
    2
  7. ​ @legallyregarded No, the OP has made an important point. This could turn out to be a close case. I haven't seen his videos, and I am guessing you have not, either. Don't be quick to judge before you have.
    2
  8.  @kevinstaggs5048  State employees enjoy a measure of First Amendment and due process rights that private sector employees do not.
    2
  9. ​ @imtryinghere1 The First Amendment does apply here, though it may not protect his job in this case. People who work for the state have more rights than those who work for private concerns.
    2
  10. If you haven't seen it, how do you know that? I'm serious. I'm done taking someone else's word.
    2
  11.  @rodster811  I didn't defend it. Why do you think I did? Because I declined to attack it without specific evidence?
    2
  12. Where is the shame? Did you watch what they've made public? I refuse to judge ANYONE without investigating.
    2
  13. ​ @ferngrows6740 If you don't know, then don't speculate. It is true that state employees enjoy some First Amendment protections that private employees do not. These are limited, for obvious reasons, but they exist.
    2
  14.  @huh4233  There are a lot of movies I would not watch in a theatre. Elle comes to mind.
    1
  15. @ivand013  In many cases, you do have a lawsuit. This is because in many PUBLIC sector jobs you can only be removed for cause, and you generally have a hearing of some sort, however limited it may be, prior to termination. You didn't know?
    1
  16.  @ivand0007  1. No, I didn't. 2. He may have a lawsuit. Public sector job, friend.
    1
  17.  @ivand0007  The employer will need to go to court if he sues them.
    1
  18. How do you know? As a public sector employee, he enjoys a measure of First Amendment protection. Have you seen what he produced, to judge for yourself? Should a filmmaker involved in the production of Boogie Nights or Elle not be a university professor? An administrator? You just jump when a MSM show says jump. This isn't evident until we consider all the facts.
    1
  19.  @jaron-craighunter4485  Well, if it was not censored by YouTube, how bad is it? I don't view this stuff, so I don't know.
    1
  20.  @kevinstaggs5048  Exactly. We don't know the salient facts.
    1
  21. How do you know?
    1
  22. It's that bad, huh? I don't plan to watch so I don't know whether it's unacceptable.
    1
  23. 😂😂😂
    1
  24. @kevinstaggs5048  Well, the very question is what the consequences should be, isn't it? Heather Graham suffered personal consequences for Boogie Nights, and I, for one, am sorry. Are these videos on that order, or worse?
    1
  25.  @rodster811  It may look like it, but I actually do believe in the First Amendment. See why it's being trashed?
    1
  26. False. A state employee enjoys certain First Amendment protections that a private employee does not. The Bill of Rights still preempts state laws.
    1
  27. In this environment, you might have a point. I don't plan to watch, so I can't judge. That simple.
    1
  28. Actually, in this area, if it's not technically "obscene," it doesn't. In any case, he is invoking the First Amendment, and public sector employees do have a measure of protection. The specific facts matter, not buzz words like "abhorrent." That's one person's opinion.
    1
  29.  @rickysampson8759  That has been and is being challenged, at trial and on appeal. The prosecutors are all swearing up and down that it falls under a clear exception, etc. It's their burden to prove it, not Trump's.
    1
  30. ​ @kevinstaggs5048  A state employer is subject to certain First Amendment constraints that the private sector does not have. Duh.
    1
  31. @swgame2511  I can see you're well-versed in First Amendment jurisprudence. And how much Strossen and Chemerinsky do you know?
    1
  32. ​@davemathews7890 😂😂😂
    1