Florida teacher fired over bikini photos

[pintofguinness14]

People's personal lives always have been relevant for certain professions, namely government and those that deal with minors. If the woman was a dentist, no one would have cared. The only thing new here is that forum she in which she chose to embarrass herself.

[fyo]

Well, I'd hardly say that the use of a strip club doesn't interfere with someone else's needs or wants. If they built a strip club next to your house tomorrow, wouldn't you mind? The secondary effects of a strip club: increased criminal activity in the nearby vicinity, possible prostitution, etc, are such that nowadays strip clubs and the like are usually zoned so that there can only be so many in so many miles, and they have to be so far apart, etc. Your patronage of the club keeps the club running, and keeps the disturbance going.

While I agree with you that masturbation is a private activity that affects no one but yourself, I don't think the same can be said of a strip club. Just look at what CF said. It may be easy for some people not to go, for other people it's not. It's like planting an addictive substance down in front of someone who you know used to be hooked and saying, "Don't touch it."

OK, this is getting to the point where I just want to scream.

Let's take this one thing at a time, because I'm genuinely interested in understand where you disagree:

1) Someone doing something in private involving only themselves. No one else (e.g. masturbation, prayer, looking at donkey pics).
2) A group of people doing something (consensually) in private involving only themselves (strip joint, church, group of people looking at donkey pics).

I cannot fathom ANYONE arguing that a group of adults shouldn't be allowed to do something consensual together if it involves no one else. It's simply none of society's business. No one (minority, majority or just "most vocal minority") should be allowed to impose their will on others. That's the basic philosophical premise that allows personal freedom, abolishes slavery, ensures freedom of religion and so on.

The ONLY thing I can understand is discussing the limits of "what affects others". Clearly, if I want to wear a long beard, I should be allowed to do so (even writing "allowed to" makes me sick to my stomach - I should need no ones permission or allowance!). If I want to wear a burqa, a Kippah or a Rosary, no one should be able to prevent me from doing so. If I want to shave my head or my beard, no one should have any saying in that. Now, if I wanted to walk around naked... well, that's where things get a bit murky.

I guess the basic premise should be rewritten "what affects others *significantly*". Certainly, that's still open to debate and I'm far from unwilling to discuss what should be and what shouldn't be considered significant.

Don't mess with the basic premise, though, that's a slippery slope and one that should be defended vigorously (the premise, not the slope!).

SCFinFan, to try and come full circle here, let me revisit the strip club:

Will you stipulate to the strip club's existence, if it "doesn't interfere with someone else's needs or wants" (as you put it). So while the affect on others might be argued as *significant* if the strip club were placed in a residential neighborhood, placement smack in the middle of a desert would probably be OK, right?

[SCFinFan]

I would mind if they put a Walmart next door to my house the same.  Increased crime, the same can be said about sporting events and stadiums.  It most definetely happens around many Air Force bases.  Possible prostitution?  That's a whole other subject that deals with the same matter at hand.  Two consenting adults engaging in an activity, what does it have to do with you?  Again, the only disturbance it creates are those that many other establishments also create.  The primary "disturbance" only affects you once you let it.

Which is exactly why these things are zoned away from residential areas. Zoning is just another way to ban things from certain places.

That said, I don't really know if I agree with your basic premise. Whether or not you shut your door things will affect you. Crime is crime. Even if you shut the door, it can come inside. It affects land values. It affects the ability to sell your property. It affects your kids if they walk outside and see it. It has wide-ranging effects. If you want to say the "primary" disturbance is there only when you let it in, and therefore, that's fine... well, ok.

The whole point of this argument is that even most activities we consider as "private" have effects on the rest of society. And therefore society has an interest in appropriating the effects so that they are beneficial to society. And therefore, the power to legislate exists.

I honestly don't think you and I really disagree that much. I mean, you've come around to admit that there are secondary effects to these places. You've admitted that sex is important and sometimes dangerous. With those two elements, why is it so bad if a legislature were to ban it? We've gone far afield. We're not even talking about merely banning something because society considers it "immoral" now. We're talking about all sorts of concrete, materialistic reasons for which someone could ban these places.


Fyo, this is where I disagree:

Let's take this one thing at a time, because I'm genuinely interested in understand where you disagree:

2) A group of people doing something (consensually) in private involving only themselves (strip joint, church, group of people looking at donkey pics).

Let's go on:

I cannot fathom ANYONE arguing that a group of adults shouldn't be allowed to do something consensual together if it involves no one else. It's simply none of society's business. No one (minority, majority or just "most vocal minority") should be allowed to impose their will on others. That's the basic philosophical premise that allows personal freedom, abolishes slavery, ensures freedom of religion and so on.

This is an exceptionally bloated view of privacy. Society imposes many such limits. Two adults, acting in private, consensually trading and viewing child pornography is still an offense which can be punished, even though the mere viewing or trading of it (without production) affects no one else. Two adults, actively plotting the destruction of a government building in the closed environment of their house is still an inchoate crime, even though the mere plotting of it affects no one else. The door to your house is sacred, I'll admit, and the government (and society) can't come in - unless they've got a warrant. Thus, "privacy" is a shield, not a sword. You cannot mask all sorts of activities, which are otherwise abominable, with privacy and hope to get away with it. Now, what's the difference between acts allowed to be done in privacy and those which, even shrouded in one's privacy or free speech, are still punishable? Simple: old morality, plain and simple. The law struggles, and very rarely is intellectually honest enough to admit this, but its undoubtedly there.

The ONLY thing I can understand is discussing the limits of "what affects others". Clearly, if I want to wear a long beard, I should be allowed to do so (even writing "allowed to" makes me sick to my stomach - I should need no ones permission or allowance!). If I want to wear a burqa, a Kippah or a Rosary, no one should be able to prevent me from doing so. If I want to shave my head or my beard, no one should have any saying in that. Now, if I wanted to walk around naked... well, that's where things get a bit murky.

I guess the basic premise should be rewritten "what affects others *significantly*". Certainly, that's still open to debate and I'm far from unwilling to discuss what should be and what shouldn't be considered significant.

Don't mess with the basic premise, though, that's a slippery slope and one that should be defended vigorously (the premise, not the slope!).

SCFinFan, to try and come full circle here, let me revisit the strip club:

Will you stipulate to the strip club's existence, if it "doesn't interfere with someone else's needs or wants" (as you put it). So while the affect on others might be argued as *significant* if the strip club were placed in a residential neighborhood, placement smack in the middle of a desert would probably be OK, right?

You hit the nail on the head with 'significantly.' That's just open for debate. And as I said above, it's gonna come down to morality, plain and simple. What one's underlying religious values are will be what informs one to think this or that significant. After that, in a democracy, the majority rules. And therefore you have dry counties, zoning ordinances which ban strip clubs in certain areas, etc.

Placement in a desert would probably be fine. I wouldn't argue that it would not be. I would say the government can outright ban such establishments if it wants to.

[SCFinFan]

I have really enjoyed this discussion with you guys.

[fyo]

This is an exceptionally bloated view of privacy. Society imposes many such limits. Two adults, acting in private, consensually trading and viewing child pornography is still an offense which can be punished, even though the mere viewing or trading of it (without production) affects no one else.

You cannot separate the "consumption" of illegal goods with the production of them. Consuming illegal goods is a continuation of the crime committed during the production (and transportation etc) and as such illegal even under my view of privacy. The same argument goes for "receiving stolen goods" as for the "child pornography" example you cite.

Two adults, actively plotting the destruction of a government building in the closed environment of their house is still an inchoate crime, even though the mere plotting of it affects no one else.

I don't believe in thought crime. I strongly believe that people should be prosecuted (and convicted) based on their actions, not their thoughts.

There's a gray area here, I'll certainly grant that: When does something pass from "thoughts" to "action". Is it the mere sharing of an idea with another person?

I certainly would stipulate that if a group (or individual) made detailed plans and gathered materials to commit an act of terrorism (e.g. blow up a building), this should be punishable.

You might think there is a clear-cut line somewhere here, but just wait 20 years and that line will blur immensely.

Let's image, just for the sake of argument, that you could actually read someone's thoughts with 100% certainty.

If an individual planned a terrorist attack on paper, should he be punished?
If an individual shared that piece of paper with another individual, should he be punished?
If an individual planned a terrorist attack in his mind, he cannot be punished now, but with our "mind reader" above, SHOULD he be punished?

And this mind reading stuff might sound far-fetched, but it's coming. It's not improbable that in 20 years we'll be able to read someone's mind fairly accurately (using very bulky equipment, a strapped down patient and a controlled environment, so it's not something that's going to be possible from a distance in the near future), certainly much more accurate than lie-detectors today.

Then there's the whole "intent" issue. If you do something, should only your actions count or should the intent be considered as well. I'm not very comfortable with the weight intent is given in society today, although I'm not ready to say it shouldn't be considered at all.

You cannot mask all sorts of activities, which are otherwise abominable, with privacy and hope to get away with it. Now, what's the difference between acts allowed to be done in privacy and those which, even shrouded in one's privacy or free speech, are still punishable?

There's a fallacy here:

All your examples include actions in private which will, in the future (or past), have a very public (and illegal) result.

While, as I mentioned initially, there's still room for a gray area as we close in on "thought crimes", there's a VERY clear line between truly private events and those that are the result of (or will result in) a public, illegal activity.

Nude bar is solidly in the truly private area. It's a closed box, so to speak. Sure, it might attract people who are more likely to commit crimes, but that should not effect the legality of the nude bar. You could make the same argument for a regular bar or even something a jewelry store, since it attracts robbers and when the shooting starts, there's always a risk of bystanders getting hurt.

EDIT: I would like to clarify a point I glossed over here: You pointed out a very real, albeit indirect, consequence of a nude bar (increase in crime). That's clearly a public effect, but it's an indirect one and I think we can both agree that indirect effects shouldn't be treated quite the same as direct effects. That's not to say they should be completely ignored, but I would prefer to keep this discussion from veering completely off and instead try to get to the fundamentals. That's why I proposed the nude bar in the middle of a desert earlier... a proposition I would like to hear your thoughts on: Do you still have a problem with a nude bar if it's located in the middle of nowhere?

One, hopefully final, note on the indirect effects issue on the nude bar in e.g. a residential neighborhood: I find it critical that laws be applied equally, without regard for any individual or groups morality. As such, it is the extend of the indirect (or direct, for that matter) consequences that should matter when assessing the "legality" of the issue. Thus is should be of no relevance that some mind find whatever goes on inside the nude bar morally reprehensible. All that should matter are the effects. Nothing else.

[Sunstroke]

I don't care what that teacher does behind closed doors.  ... Operate a donkey show over the border in Mexico. 

Ahhh, you've met Ms. Dotson... Great math teacher, and so kind to animals.

[Dave Gray]

Land 'O Lakes, Florida -- The stories in the news about inappropriate relationships between teachers and students have been overwhelming.  There was even a substitute teacher in New Port Richey who got in trouble after investigators say she had a relationship with an underage student.

Well, another Pasco County substitute teacher's job is on the line, but this time it's because of a magic trick.

The charge from the school district — Wizardry!

Substitute teacher Jim Piculas does a 30-second magic trick where a toothpick disappears then reappears.

But after performing it in front of a classroom at Rushe Middle School in Land 'O Lakes, Piculas said his job did a disappearing act of its own.

"I get a call the middle of the day from head of supervisor of substitute teachers.  He says, 'Jim, we have a huge issue, you can't take any more assignments you need to come in right away,'" he said.

When Piculas went in, he learned his little magic trick cast a spell and went much farther than he'd hoped.

"I said, 'Well Pat, can you explain this to me?'  'You've been accused of wizardry,' [he said]. Wizardry?" he asked.

Tampa Bay's 10 talked to the assistant superintendent with the Pasco County School District who said it wasn't just the wizardry and that Picular had other performance issues, including "not following lesson plans" and allowing students to play on unapproved computers."

Piculas said he knew nothing about the accusations.

"That... I think was embellished after the fact to try to cover what initially what they were saying to me," he said.

After the magic trick, Rushe's principal requested Piculas be dismissed.  Now, Piculas believes the incident may have bewitched his ability to get a job anywhere else.

"I still have no idea what my discipline involves because I've never received anything from the school district actually saying what it entails," said Piculas.

As a substitute teacher, the Pasco County School District considers Piculas to be an "at will employee." That means the district doesn't need to have cause for not bringing him back at all.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=79533

I don't know how true this is, but the fact that "accusations of wizardry" even came up for reasons of his termination is baffling.  When are we, as a society, going to start living in the real world?

[run_to_win]

We?

[Guru-In-Vegas]

^ I guess some would prefer to stay in the land of wizardry and flat worlds.

[run_to_win]

What's it like there?

[Guru-In-Vegas]

^ Full of conservatives and Bush supporters...get me out of here.