Skip to content

Logical puzzle

University chancellor sacked ‘for filming pornography with wife’

Is it actually pornography if it is with one’s own wife?

21 thoughts on “Logical puzzle”

  1. Reading the article, it would seem running the content on a YouTube channel’s what’s got university knickers in a twist. Should have gone for anti-Semitic rants or maybe tranny pr0n.

  2. Maybe it means that she adjusted the lighting angles and synchronised the sound while he pointed the camera at the whores.

  3. He is claiming First Amendment rights to make porn films.

    Does he bring his employer into disrepute ?
    ( I’d say yes, although he does not state that he is Chancellor – shurely vice chancellor – ho ho – he is recognisable as that officer of the University. What is not clear – is he actually engaging in such acts himself ? )

    Is he making a side income from the films and did he declare this extra job to his employers and the IRS ?

  4. Btw

    In answer to Tim’s question :

    If it is explicit content for broadcast to third parties, then yes it is porn. Doesnt matter who is involved.

    The question i have is ” at what stage does it become pornographic?” Which I think is a subjective matter. There is/was an official definition of “obscene” but I don’t know whether that is necessarily the same thing.

  5. “ Is it actually pornography if it is with one’s own wife?”

    Yes. It’s the ‘graphy’ part that makes it so, not the participants. Anything considered obscene presented graphically – even just in writing – is pornography unless it can be considered art.

  6. Dennis, Clear-Eyed As Always

    It seems the modern ‘Merican university/college has the unerring ability to hire people bereft of any moral or ethical grounding and then place them in key management and/or teaching positions.

  7. I guess the problem for the college is the apparent hypocrisy throughout US universities regarding what is and isn’t free speech. In this case there wasn’t any ‘process’ to speak of, he just received an email saying he’d been fired. By contrast, if he had called for genocide against the Jews….

  8. Is there such a thing as pr0n, legally, in the US? I thought it was covered by the 1st. So it’s just a film. Content’s nothing to do with the law.

  9. It seems the modern ‘Merican university/college has the unerring ability to hire people bereft of any moral or ethical grounding and then place them in key management and/or teaching positions.
    You implying this is just a US problem, Dennis? Seems to be a global industry standard.

  10. The usual definition of pornography is that it is material intended to elicit sexual arousal. Not dependent on who (or what) is in it.

    @Ottokring – “Does he bring his employer into disrepute ?”

    That depends on how rabidly prudish you are. If you see nothing wrong with pornography, then he cannot have done so (indeed, it is the arbitrary dismissal which should be cause for disrepute.

    “Is he making a side income from the films and did he declare this extra job to his employers and the IRS ?”

    Having second (or even third) jobs is extremely common in America – though ususally among those paid rather less who need extra income.

    And, of course, his relationship with the IRS is no business of his employer.

  11. Dennis, Who Has A Degree In Economics

    You implying this is just a US problem, Dennis? Seems to be a global industry standard.

    Given that we all know that Richard Murphy is a “Professor of Accounting Practice” at some wog diploma mill, mentioning it as global problem at this site seemed a bit too obvious.

  12. Dennis, Remembering The Mammaries

    Just a note: Wisconsin is an “at-will” employment state, meaning that generally employers can discharge an employee without cause. So, however much horn-dog threatens the Uni, those threats aren’t going to frighten anyone. And, I’ll bet that his contract with the Uni stipulates that if he behaves in a manner that brings the Uni into disrepute, he loses his job.

    I hope he has a lot of Viagra and a wifey with stamina, ’cause he’s gonna need a new career.

  13. >bloke in spain
    December 29, 2023 at 4:22 pm
    Is there such a thing as pr0n, legally, in the US? I thought it was covered by the 1st. So it’s just a film. Content’s nothing to do with the law.

    Yes. Hence why under-18’s can’t access it.

    And it is covered by the 1st in terms of making and consuming it – but only adults have full rights, not children, so they can be excluded.

    However, while you have a right to consume and make pornography, you don’t have a right to force others to associate with someone who does – hence why the university can fire him.

  14. >Charles
    December 29, 2023 at 5:13 pm
    The usual definition of pornography is that it is material intended to elicit sexual arousal. Not dependent on who (or what) is in it.

    I thought that was the joke? You know ‘with your wife’?

  15. “Is there such a thing as pr0n, legally, in the US? I thought it was covered by the 1st.”
    There are exceptions that aren’t covered by the 1st. These include obscenity, defamation, “fighting words”, and speech aiding criminal conduct.
    Speech making fun of trannies or criticizing Islam is covered by the 1st.

  16. In the “good old days” “pornography” was defined as “that which gave the Judge an erection”… No females on The Bench in those days. 🙂

  17. Agammamon: “Hence why under-18’s can’t access it.”

    Do we live in the same world?
    Illegal for Youf to view, and for providers to facilitate that viewing, granted.

    But no-one’s ever deterred a determined horny teen from getting his/her grubby hands on wanking inspiration.
    It’s like trying to command the tides, and stuff…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *