I wonder if this message board is indirectly responsible for this. The Chancellor’s bio indicates he is a runner. It’s possible he read the classic “postnuptial shutoff” thread here and decided he needed to show married men there’s another way.
Foul. Nobody wants to see people that old getting freaky.
Obviously, you haven't acquainted yourself with the full gamut of videos on 'the hub', because in fact, there are a significant number of people who want to see 'people that old getting freaky'. Hell, they'd be too young for a lot of those videos. :O
Foul. Nobody wants to see people that old getting freaky.
Obviously, you haven't acquainted yourself with the full gamut of videos on 'the hub', because in fact, there are a significant number of people who want to see 'people that old getting freaky'. Hell, they'd be too young for a lot of those videos. :O
From USA Today: The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents unanimously fired UW-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow during a closed-door meeting Wednesday after discovering videos posted on porn websites featuring him and his wife.
Gow, 63, and his wife, Carmen Wilson, are featured on several porn websites using "Sexy Happy Couple" as the account name, a moniker also used on at least two social media accounts.
The couple also published two books detailing their experiences in the adult film industry, under pseudonyms. Both books and the social media accounts feature photos clearly showing Gow and Wilson.
Gow told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, part of the USA TODAY Network, that the creation of books and videos exploring consensual adult sexuality falls within his right to free speech under the First Amendment. He said he previously hid this part of his life but made a recent decision to reverse course and "be a little bit more open about these free speech issues."
"There's nothing said about the University of Wisconsin; there's nothing said about the chancellor (on the videos)," he said after the firing Wednesday. "So someone else would have to make those associations. And then someone would have to say those are problematic."
All fair. A chancellor is a leadership position representing the university. The university understandably doesn’t want to be associated with porn.
There is no freedom of speech issue here because it’s a university retaliating in the role of an employer, not the state, and even though it is a public university, that distinction is material.
Check his contract or employment agreement. It should be publicly available since it's a state university. There is probably a morality clause, or something about representing the university in good standing, etc. I personally don't think it's a big deal for him to do it, but I understand why the university might not want to have that association with one of it's high-profile administrators.
True. He is free to do those things on his own time, but there are consequences to those choices, like not being able to work at U of Wisconsin anymore.
From USA Today: The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents unanimously fired UW-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow during a closed-door meeting Wednesday after discovering videos posted on porn websites featuring him and his wife.
Gow, 63, and his wife, Carmen Wilson, are featured on several porn websites using "Sexy Happy Couple" as the account name, a moniker also used on at least two social media accounts.
The couple also published two books detailing their experiences in the adult film industry, under pseudonyms. Both books and the social media accounts feature photos clearly showing Gow and Wilson.
Gow told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, part of the USA TODAY Network, that the creation of books and videos exploring consensual adult sexuality falls within his right to free speech under the First Amendment. He said he previously hid this part of his life but made a recent decision to reverse course and "be a little bit more open about these free speech issues."
"There's nothing said about the University of Wisconsin; there's nothing said about the chancellor (on the videos)," he said after the firing Wednesday. "So someone else would have to make those associations. And then someone would have to say those are problematic."
You don't say why he was fired, specifically, so no way to say. Gow might say it was because of an exercise of his right to free speech, but that doesn't make it so.
There is no freedom of speech issue here because it’s a university retaliating in the role of an employer, not the state, and even though it is a public university, that distinction is material.
I don't believe that this is an accurate statement of the law -- a public employer is not ipso facto free to "retaliate" against "speech" or expression that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment -- but the agreed-upon terms of a public employment contract may restrict expressive rights that might otherwise be protected under the First Amendment. In this particular case, what I've read suggests to me that the chancellor has a weak legal case. (Since someone made a not-too-oblique reference to Claudine Gay, I will say, without much further elaboration at this time -- I've heretofore stayed out of public discussions of that case -- her alleged refusal to resign in accordance with the desires of the Harvard Corporation seems to stand on much stronger legal footing, even though (1) Harvard is not a state actor with a direct duty to follow the First or Fourteenth Amendment, (2) Gay is a shoddy and undistinguished scholar who was appointed for reasons that the U.S. Supreme Court might very well hold unlawful under constitutional standards incorporated into federal Civil Rights statutes, and (3) supported allegations of plagiarism might ordinarily disqualify someone from serious consideration for the presidency of Harvard University. If Gay had recently advocated for genocide, as some have suggested, the case would likely be very different, but she apparently has done no such thing, and has simply responded truthfully about Harvard policy in her Congressional testimony. It's an unfortunate case that Harvard brought upon itself after adopting and applying certain speech policies and knowingly hiring a poor candidate with a questionable ethical and scholarly background for its presidency. I expect Harvard to offer a massive settlement to Gay to try to restore some backing from big donors and influence-peddlers. But Harvard's toxic hypocrisy regarding academic standards and institutional policies will persist.)
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
I work in academia and am honestly a bit intellectually conflicted on this story. On one hand, I have for years hated the chilling effect of students/professors limiting free speech to fit a preordained political agenda (one in which I sometimes agree with and sometimes do not). Universities should be places where people wrestle with complicated and conflicting ideas and viewpoints, and as such, being in adult movies--as long as they are not being foisted on students or coworkers--should fall under free speech, which should always be sacrosanct in the university environment. Amy Wax, as grotesque as I find her opinions, has a right to them. Just as hardline anti-Israeli academics--who I vigorously disagree with--have a right to speak out on their politics.
On the other hand, I can see no way forward for this man to do his job. Chancellors are public faces of universities and their role for public universities, in particular, carry great political and social weight. The sometimes are go-betweens for the university and the state political system. Whatever I may personally feel about his personal life being separate from his professional, there is simply no universe in which I see him navigating the public sphere without this story trailing him, and thus, causing material harm to the university he represents. I wish Americans weren't so freaking all-or-nothing about things--but we often are, and as such, I can't see how we could continue his job and what it requires.
I don't believe that this is an accurate statement of the law -- a public employer is not ipso facto free to "retaliate" against "speech" or expression that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment -- but the agreed-upon terms of a public employment contract may restrict expressive rights that might otherwise be protected under the First Amendment. In this particular case, what I've read suggests to me that the chancellor has a weak legal case. (Since someone made a not-too-oblique reference to Claudine Gay, I will say, without much further elaboration at this time -- I've heretofore stayed out of public discussions of that case -- her alleged refusal to resign in accordance with the desires of the Harvard Corporation seems to stand on much stronger legal footing, even though (1) Harvard is not a state actor with a direct duty to follow the First or Fourteenth Amendment, (2) Gay is a shoddy and undistinguished scholar who was appointed for reasons that the U.S. Supreme Court might very well hold unlawful under constitutional standards incorporated into federal Civil Rights statutes, and (3) supported allegations of plagiarism might ordinarily disqualify someone from serious consideration for the presidency of Harvard University. If Gay had recently advocated for genocide, as some have suggested, the case would likely be very different, but she apparently has done no such thing, and has simply responded truthfully about Harvard policy in her Congressional testimony. It's an unfortunate case that Harvard brought upon itself after adopting and applying certain speech policies and knowingly hiring a poor candidate with a questionable ethical and scholarly background for its presidency. I expect Harvard to offer a massive settlement to Gay to try to restore some backing from big donors and influence-peddlers. But Harvard's toxic hypocrisy regarding academic standards and institutional policies will persist.)
See SexyHappyCouple's porn videos and official profile, only on Pornhub. Check out the best videos, photos, gifs and playlists from amateur model SexyHappyCouple. Browse through the content she uploaded herself on her verifie...