Texas Reporter is suing for her right to strip.

[Jupiter551]

I'd say you just drew it. The example you used was one in which the productivity of an entire department or group was brought down by someone's ON THE JOB behavior. On the other side of the line is NOT firing someone for what they do when NOT at your company working but working at an alternate LEGAL job. Newspapers are not churches, and of all businesses should show even more acceptance and tolerance than other jobs. Journalism is supposed to be about not taking sides.

We're talking about a state where anti-gay marriage laws have been implemented. Acceptance? Tolerance? I've tried talking to some of these nut jobs around my area and reason doesn't phase them. They regurgitate the bullshit they've been fed like well trained parrots.

I stand by the fact that by the legal letter of the law, they are within their rights even if I don't agree that it's such a big deal. They perceive it as damaging to their reputation and they took the completely legal action they felt was necessary.

Ok, but she graduated journalism from NYU, which is I think at least a 4 year degree and no pushover - so the question is, should someone taking their clothes off for money completely ruin any chance of another career? It's not just about this job, it's potentially threatened her ability to get ANY job in that field. Sorry, but that isn't right and I suspect it's within the letter of the law for her to sue someone for future lost income.

 

[Nordling]

Yes, re: letter of the law maybe. But sometimes the law is an ass. I'll waste no time justifying actions by companies who are going by the letter of the ass. Laws get changed, as someone alluded to earlier, by protesting, talking, breaking, testing, and more.

 

[Mirra]

Ok, but she graduated journalism from NYU, which is I think at least a 4 year degree and no pushover - so the question is, should someone taking their clothes off for money completely ruin any chance of another career? It's not just about this job, it's potentially threatened her ability to get ANY job in that field. Sorry, but that isn't right and I suspect it's within the letter of the law for her to sue someone for future lost income.

Right right... I am quite familiar with tort law. Wrongful termination would allow her to collect for lost wages if she had a legal leg to stand on. With current law, she does not. She has a VERY long way to go if she is to find justice here. Most lower courts will not set a precedent like this. More appellate courts would but still many might shy away from it and IF she won at the appellate court level, I feel sure the paper would then push for it to go to the state supreme court. Good luck to her I guess.

As for threatening her ability to get a job, libel and slander laws would protect her from her employer sandbagging her for another job. Being outed by that other paper, on the other hand, put it out there in the open so any other potential employer with similar concerns would probably avoid her, it's true. In that case I believe her claim would be more suitably filed against the other paper.... IF it wasn't for that whole freedom of press thing.

Yes, re: letter of the law maybe. But sometimes the law is an ass. I'll waste no time justifying actions by companies who are going by the letter of the ass. Laws get changed, as someone alluded to earlier, by protesting, talking, breaking, testing, and more.

Well it's a good thing I'm the one wasting my time by saying the actions of the newspaper are legal and not you. As for the law being an ass, that's quite a silly statement in my opinion. The lawmakers are the asses. Silly Nordling.

 

[Nordling]

Ok, but she graduated journalism from NYU, which is I think at least a 4 year degree and no pushover - so the question is, should someone taking their clothes off for money completely ruin any chance of another career? It's not just about this job, it's potentially threatened her ability to get ANY job in that field. Sorry, but that isn't right and I suspect it's within the letter of the law for her to sue someone for future lost income.

Right right... I am quite familiar with tort law. Wrongful termination would allow her to collect for lost wages if she had a legal leg to stand on. With current law, she does not. She has a VERY long way to go if she is to find justice here. Most lower courts will not set a precedent like this. More appellate courts would but still many might shy away from it and IF she won at the appellate court level, I feel sure the paper would then push for it to go to the state supreme court. Good luck to her I guess.

As for threatening her ability to get a job, libel and slander laws would protect her from her employer sandbagging her for another job. Being outed by that other paper, on the other hand, put it out there in the open so any other potential employer with similar concerns would probably avoid her, it's true. In that case I believe her claim would be more suitably filed against the other paper.... IF it wasn't for that whole freedom of press thing.

Yes, re: letter of the law maybe. But sometimes the law is an ass. I'll waste no time justifying actions by companies who are going by the letter of the ass. Laws get changed, as someone alluded to earlier, by protesting, talking, breaking, testing, and more.

Well it's a good thing I'm the one wasting my time by saying the actions of the newspaper are legal and not you. As for the law being an ass, that's quite a silly statement in my opinion. The lawmakers are the asses. Silly Nordling.

Guess you've never heard of Charles Dickens. Or even artistic license.

 

[Jupiter551]

I would have thought the other newspaper "outing" her would be considered libel. Freedom of the Press is not exempt from defamation suits, as the many suing celebrities can attest.

 

[Mirra]

Long story short, Jupiter, is the competing paper is pretty safe. A pair of court cases set the precedents for freedom of the press that a) truth is a defense against charges of libel and b) malicious intent must be proven.

Guess you've never heard of Charles Dickens. Or even artistic license.

There's a difference between having heard of Charles Dickens and having read everything he ever wrote. I am also quite familiar with artistic license.

 

[Nordling]

Long story short, Jupiter, is the competing paper is pretty safe. A pair of court cases set the precedents for freedom of the press that a) truth is a defense against charges of libel and b) malicious intent must be proven.

Guess you've never heard of Charles Dickens. Or even artistic license.

There's a difference between having heard of Charles Dickens and having read everything he ever wrote. I am also quite familiar with artistic license.

It's a relatively common phrase ("the law is an ass"), and is used in a lot of different contexts, but the origin was Dickens' "Oliver Twist," in which a Mr. Bumble is informed "the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction," and which Bumble replies with something like "if the law supposes that, then the law is an ass." The joke being that the speaker didn't know much about his wife if he thought she was under anyone's control.

I used it in another context here on the board--thus artistic license. (Think metaphor)

 

[Mirra]

This is turning into condescending bickering instead of a topic oriented discussion. Peace out, bitches.

 

[Just Me]

I would have thought the other newspaper "outing" her would be considered libel. Freedom of the Press is not exempt from defamation suits, as the many suing celebrities can attest.

Unless I am very mistaken about libel, if it is a true statement it can not be considered libel. Defamation is a whole other matter, but common law still usually requires that the statement be false.

 

[Just Me]

First of all it's not a "used to take her clothes off" situation this time. She still stripped occasionally while working for the newspaper if my understanding of the story is correct. Not that it probably changes your opinion at all but I just wanted to clarify based on what I understood from it.

That said, I've grown up in the Bible belt. I am very used to the mentality of which you speak. While I myself am extremely skeptical of the extreme need to force morality on everyone that seems pervasive in the neo-conservatives that make up a large portion of the population, I still defend a private businesses right to hire and fire as they please so long as they are not breaking any discrimination laws/statutes. I can tell my opinion isn't very popular here but I don't really care. I personally think they did themselves a disservice if she truly was as adept at her job as the article infers. If criticizing and fireing because of a person's choice of alternate income (though legal) is discrimination, what is not? Are the only justifiable causes for termination of employment breaking laws or failure to perform your duties? We've fired people from our department because they "weren't a good fit" for the team. They performed their duties acceptably but brought a level of hostility to the department. Our CIO decided we had given the lady long enough adjust and decided we had to let her go. Did we discriminate against her personality? Maybe. We're a state and federally funded University so I feel the cause and documentation of termination should be stricter than that of a privately owned business and yet I feel it had to be done. It's a little different for sure but WHERE do you draw the line?

I'd say you just drew it. The example you used was one in which the productivity of an entire department or group was brought down by someone's ON THE JOB behavior. On the other side of the line is NOT firing someone for what they do when NOT at your company working but working at an alternate LEGAL job. Newspapers are not churches, and of all businesses should show even more acceptance and tolerance than other jobs. Journalism is supposed to be about not taking sides.

Would you trust her reports to be unbiased if they were about the sex/stripper industry? We do not know that the newspaper would not have fired her over having any type of other job and not tell them. I certainly would not trust a reporter to be unbiased if they worked in finance outside of journalism and they were reporting on the financial sector.

 

[Nordling]

First of all it's not a "used to take her clothes off" situation this time. She still stripped occasionally while working for the newspaper if my understanding of the story is correct. Not that it probably changes your opinion at all but I just wanted to clarify based on what I understood from it.

That said, I've grown up in the Bible belt. I am very used to the mentality of which you speak. While I myself am extremely skeptical of the extreme need to force morality on everyone that seems pervasive in the neo-conservatives that make up a large portion of the population, I still defend a private businesses right to hire and fire as they please so long as they are not breaking any discrimination laws/statutes. I can tell my opinion isn't very popular here but I don't really care. I personally think they did themselves a disservice if she truly was as adept at her job as the article infers. If criticizing and fireing because of a person's choice of alternate income (though legal) is discrimination, what is not? Are the only justifiable causes for termination of employment breaking laws or failure to perform your duties? We've fired people from our department because they "weren't a good fit" for the team. They performed their duties acceptably but brought a level of hostility to the department. Our CIO decided we had given the lady long enough adjust and decided we had to let her go. Did we discriminate against her personality? Maybe. We're a state and federally funded University so I feel the cause and documentation of termination should be stricter than that of a privately owned business and yet I feel it had to be done. It's a little different for sure but WHERE do you draw the line?

I'd say you just drew it. The example you used was one in which the productivity of an entire department or group was brought down by someone's ON THE JOB behavior. On the other side of the line is NOT firing someone for what they do when NOT at your company working but working at an alternate LEGAL job. Newspapers are not churches, and of all businesses should show even more acceptance and tolerance than other jobs. Journalism is supposed to be about not taking sides.

Would you trust her reports to be unbiased if they were about the sex/stripper industry? We do not know that the newspaper would not have fired her over having any type of other job and not tell them. I certainly would not trust a reporter to be unbiased if they worked in finance outside of journalism and they were reporting on the financial sector.

Good point. Of course that's why they have editors who assign stories, and a decent editor would probably not assign her a story on the front page that involved a job she herself was involved in. Although, he might let her write an op ed on her outside job/interests.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I would have thought the other newspaper "outing" her would be considered libel. Freedom of the Press is not exempt from defamation suits, as the many suing celebrities can attest.

Unless I am very mistaken about libel, if it is a true statement it can not be considered libel. Defamation is a whole other matter, but common law still usually requires that the statement be false.

UK law and US law may differ, but in the UK, a newspaper can absolutely be sued for libel even if the statement is true.
Hey, I actually learnt something from my journalism degree :-D

 

[Jupiter551]

I would have thought the other newspaper "outing" her would be considered libel. Freedom of the Press is not exempt from defamation suits, as the many suing celebrities can attest.

Unless I am very mistaken about libel, if it is a true statement it can not be considered libel. Defamation is a whole other matter, but common law still usually requires that the statement be false.

UK law and US law may differ, but in the UK, a newspaper can absolutely be sued for libel even if the statement is true.
Hey, I actually learnt something from my journalism degree :-D

It's my understanding that libel can be true, but still damaging stuff about a person's private life - publishing a story that the local scoutmaster has been living with his gay boyfriend for the last 10 years for instance.

If the stuff is damaging and ISN'T true, that's slander. Similar, but not the same. Just because something is true doesn't mean you can use it to destroy a person's reputation.

 

[Mirra]

Yeah... I know I said I was done with this thread but...

It's my understanding that libel can be true, but still damaging stuff about a person's private life - publishing a story that the local scoutmaster has been living with his gay boyfriend for the last 10 years for instance.

If the stuff is damaging and ISN'T true, that's slander. Similar, but not the same. Just because something is true doesn't mean you can use it to destroy a person's reputation.

As I mentioned, there have been two legal precedents set regarding defamation cases where the press is involved in the United States. The first happened LONG time ago and was actually The Crown vs. some New York publisher guy whose name escapes me. It led to truth being a defense to accusations of libel and slander against the press.

Definition time!
Libel - Defamation by written or printed word. (AKA Text)
Slander - Defamation by spoken or recorded word. (AKA Sound)

 

[Jupiter551]

Ok whatever, I still don't think the press is allowed to print personal info about people that destroy their career without a damn good reason

 

[SoTxBob]

Just out on tonights news.... The first interview shes done since being back in Houston and only talking to KHOU news...
Shes doing well, still working as a writing instructor at U of H and also stripping now as a headliner. Authoring a book and going on a book signing tour this summer where she will also be feature dancer some places at night... I'd say the Chronicle firing her was the best thing that could have happened to her wallet.

http://www.khou.com/video/featured-vide ... 63285.html