# Teacher suing for sexual discrimination



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...york-teacher-topless-photo-firing/3348089002/

"A New York woman says she was fired last week from her job as a middle school math teacher after a student came into possession of an old topless photo of her without her consent.

Lauren Miranda's firing amounted to sex discrimination, attorney John Ray said in a press release announcing a lawsuit against Suffolk County's South Country School District.

"Lauren Miranda was an excellent math teacher by all accounts," Ray said in a written statement. "Long ago, she sent her topless unremarkable selfie to her companion, never to anyone else. By unknown means, a student obtained it. The school district took possession of it, excoriated her, and fired her because her breasts were displayed. This would never have happened to a male teacher.""

I hope she wins.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

'unremarkable" ?


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

This false and overwhelming false moral thinking makes me puke
Everyone has a life, a past and a future...
And if i we follow this route further, we might get a background check that includes our local hard drives at home if any of these self named moral inspectors find something against you...
Sounds like Christian sharia...
There is nothing wrong with being nude...how in the word can the country with the most porn productions end up to uptight?
She should claim it as her religion so her behavior is covered under the constitution...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Isn’t this when somebody usually says I’d have to see the evidence to decide?


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Isn’t this when somebody usually says I’d have to see the evidence to decide?


for science


----------



## Meinecke (Jun 30, 2017)

No in such case is the existence of the picture is not even any evidence...
Cause if she like to do what ever she likes in her private world is no ones business...thats why ts called private life and privacy
And if someone steals a picture and makes it public, this person is to blame...
Does it make her a less good teacher if she peels bananas from the bottom or top or has some special love to her dog or runs around topless at home...??
We have to stop judging people life's against an unreachable ideal...(mostly the judges are not even any better, just haven't gotten caught in the act YET)
If you think, you need to go into the basement to change, fine, but dont blame anyone doing it at daylight...
Holy...this is supposed to be the land of the brave and the free and not of the basement laughers...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Meinecke said:


> There is nothing wrong with being nude.


I agree, as long as it's *not* posted on the internet.
I bet there is wording to that effect in her contract.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Meinecke said:


> This false and overwhelming false moral thinking makes me puke
> Everyone has a life, a past and a future...
> And if i we follow this route further, we might get a background check that includes our local hard drives at home if any of these self named moral inspectors find something against you...
> Sounds like Christian sharia...
> ...


Sounds like fundamentalist Islam and the folks who tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh
Wonder what would have happened if they discovered a Bible on her desk?
Maybe the cable news should run round the clock coverage and instigate a special investigation.

A mirror can be such an ugly, ugly thing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Sounds like fundamentalist Islam and the folks who tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh
> Wonder what would have happened if they discovered a Bible on her desk?
> Maybe the cable news should run round the clock coverage and instigate a special investigation.
> 
> A mirror can be such an ugly, ugly thing.


Is this attempt at making this political trying to get this thread tossed?


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I agree, as long as it's *not* posted on the internet.
> I bet there is wording to that effect in her contract.


You might have very well hit the nail on the head there. 

In our local school district, it states in the teacher's contract that the teachers are to have good moral values - as it's assumed many students will look up to teachers. 

One of the local teachers had a part time job - as a stripper on the weekend. When it ended up on the internet, the administration had a chat with her, and she decided to resign instead of the other option of being fired.

I understand that everyone isn't perfect, but when you are teaching and influencing kids - I think you should be held to a higher standard. That's the problem with the internet - people don't think about things they say or pictures they post. Nothing is ever erased off the internet - and many people who post such things are likely to be written off when applying for jobs when their potential employer starts looking.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

I couldn't care less what a teacher does in her personal life as long as she does her teaching job well and refrains from trying to influence students' social thinking and moral values.

In fact, I'd rather have a stripper who does her teaching job well than some we have in our local schools who teach socialism in the classroom.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Is this attempt at making this political trying to get this thread tossed?


It's a vast right wing conspiracy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Isn’t this when somebody usually says I’d have to see the evidence to decide?


Everything one needs to find the "evidence" is in the OP.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

painterswife said:


> Is this attempt at making this political trying to get this thread tossed?


I believe GTX63 is taking umbrage at the prior insult directed at a class of people of which he is a member.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

ET1 SS said:


> 'unremarkable" ?





AmericanStand said:


> Isn’t this when somebody usually says I’d have to see the evidence to decide?


Exactly.
There should at least be some kind of impartial investigation, to judge this case on the merits.
I'm sure volunteers could be found and impaneled.





painterswife said:


> "Lauren Miranda was an excellent math teacher by all accounts," Ray said in a written statement. "Long ago, she sent her topless unremarkable selfie to her companion, never to anyone else. By unknown means, a student obtained it. The school district took possession of it, excoriated her, and fired her because her breasts were displayed. This would never have happened to a male teacher.""
> 
> I hope she wins.





> Miranda, 25, took the photo in 2016 and sent it to a romantic partner who also worked at the school, New York City TV station Pix11 reported. She said she does not know how a student came into possession of the photo.



At 3 years ago, I wouldn't think that qualified as "long ago" and at the age of 22, there could be a serious difference of opinion as to whether the photo is "unremarkable" or not.
I think she's entitled to a fair hearing before conceding to such an unflattering opinion..........


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Maybe school administration should be looking at where their priorities lie.

When our youngest son was a junior in HS, his English teacher was a young gal who had recently divorced and had turned heavily into "clubbing" and dating. She had very strong issues with her ex husband regarding his "faults" as well as his new girlfriend, his methods of parenting their daughter, his finances, etc. 
She was seeking a different and better type of man who could check all of her boxes and she frequently compared the latest with the previous.
She was also a proclaimed socialist who seemed to possess a knowledge of current events based on sound bites and talking points.
How do I know all of this? Because she took a great portion of each period to blather on about all of the above, to the point it was, as my son put it, "cringy". Ten minutes of teaching, 40 minutes of blathering.
Her class could have stayed home each day and learned more, yet in spite of complaints and meetings with parents, she continued to use 16 year olds to espouse her opinions of men, lifestyle and Hillary.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Michael W. Smith said:


> You might have very well hit the nail on the head there.
> 
> In our local school district, it states in the teacher's contract that the teachers are to have good moral values - as it's assumed many students will look up to teachers.
> 
> ...


 Good morals ?
Fine but who gets to pick ?
Everybody I’ve ever met thought their morals were fine.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

I taught with a stripper in one school I worked at. She was an excellent teacher. The principal was a jerk, kept trying to hit on her. She quit, told me she made more dancing on the weekend than she did teaching all week. I've also had female students that worked in those establishments after graduating. They did pretty well as well.


----------



## Oregon1986 (Apr 25, 2017)

NRA_guy said:


> I couldn't care less what a teacher does in her personal life as long as she does her teaching job well and refrains from trying to influence students' social thinking and moral values.
> 
> In fact, I'd rather have a stripper who does her teaching job well than some we have in our local schools who teach socialism in the classroom.


I agree!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Good morals ?
> Fine but who gets to pick ?
> Everybody I’ve ever met thought their morals were fine.


Most schools and businesses have some pretty specific parameters on the morals clause in the employment contracts and company handbooks.


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

According to the OP post, the teacher did NOT put the photo out there, only sent it to her companion. Somehow a student got hold of it and that may be the problem.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I wonder if NY's revenge porn law will be involved in this, the teacher didn't put the picture out for public view, only sent it to a partner. The partner must have released for the student to be able to see it. 

Not that this would impact this case specifically, but NY also has regulations that allows women to be topless anywhere a man can.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Perhaps the title of this thread should be "A teachable moment".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think a lot of photos are unintendedly released to the public when somebody loses or sells their phone.
Or of course the phone could’ve been stolen with this intention. 
A student could have hacked the teachers phone just for the purpose of discovering embarrassing things.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

anniew said:


> According to the OP post, *the teacher did NOT put the photo out there*, only sent it to her companion. Somehow a student got hold of it and that may be the problem.


She sent it over the internet.
Now the whole world can see it.

Actions have consequences.
Not everyone agrees on what they should be, but that's ok too.

This is between a teacher and her employer.
All the publicity will only make things worse for her.

But that's fine if her "crisis" can be used to push agendas.
We can't let one go to waste!


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Long ago teachers were not allowed to be married. We've come a long way, huh?

PS: I would not want to see any of my teachers srtipped. Let's just say that they would not have made much money stripping.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

What I hate is the double standard applied The ones who are passing judgment on her probably held their meeting at the local strip club. Who is so perfect that they can decide whats moral for everyone.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

D-BOONE said:


> What I hate is the double standard applied The ones who are passing judgment on her probably held their meeting at the local strip club. *Who is so perfect that they can decide whats moral for everyone.*


And what about those of us who don't believe in so-called morals?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She sent it over the internet. /QUOTE]
> 
> How do you know this to be true?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> How do you know this to be true?


I read the article in the OP,



> "Long ago, *she sent* her topless unremarkable selfie to her companion, never to anyone else.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

wr said:


> Most schools and businesses have some pretty specific parameters on the morals clause in the employment contracts and company handbooks.



Last year, somebody videotaped a Fed Ex truck in a local grocery store parking lot. It showed the truck sitting there (in the very middle of the parking lot.). A car pulled up beside it, and a lady got out of her car while the driver of the Fed Ex truck opened his side door. Said lady went up into the truck and after she was in, he closed that door and opened up the door to the back of the truck. Apparently the driver wanted to show the lady "something" in the back of the truck.

After a while of the truck rocking, the door opened to the front of the truck, where the lady came out, got into her car, and left. The Fed Ex driver's "break" must have been over to. Whomever video this put it on Youtube.

The Fed Ex driver lost his job, as well as the lady - who worked in a local insurance office. The insurance office even had on their website that so and so, no longer works here. (As you can imagine, it wouldn't take long for somebody to know who the driver was, and I'm sure the bosses at Fed Ex were told about the video.) Same for the insurance agent - in a small town people know who you are.)

I'm guessing their job losses didn't go over so well with their spouses. (Yes, they were both married .)

For somebody to be there and video it, I would have to assume this wasn't a first time. Not sure why, the Fed Ex driver would decide to park his park in the middle of the parking lot - with people coming and going all around it. I mean, if you are going to do that, wouldn't you find a dead end street or low traffic street instead of in the middle of a busy grocery store's parking lot?

While the Fed Ex driver could be reprimanded by Fed Ex for breaking several rules (allowing people in the truck, taking people to the back of the truck, etc) what about the insurance lady? I'm sure she was on her lunch break - she wasn't "on the clock", this didn't happen in the insurance agency building - but yet she got fired too?

Are some of you saying she shouldn't have been fired?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

The article lacks clarity and I'm sure we're getting only what her lawyer wants us to have. I wondered if the photo was sent via internet or text message. In either case, I'm left with unanswered questions.

They do admit that the recipient of the unremarkable pictures was a coworker, which can be against employment policies. One coworker sending pictures of breasts, genitals, etc would fall under sexual harassment within her terms of employment and we only have her word that the two had a relationship.

I would wonder if the photos were sent by email or via the internet and who's internet she used to send the unremarkable pictures. If she happened to use a school email account or school internet to send them, I think her lawsuit may end abruptly because every employer has strong policy in place for internet use.

There are a few too many gaps in the story for me to offer sympathy or jump on the unreasonable employer bandwagon without further details but I find it a bit odd that some random student, just happened to find the only photo of his math teacher's breasts and took it right to school administrators or a parent.

As far as sexual discrimination, I'm not quite seeing it. I'm sure that a male teacher would also be terminated under the same circumstances.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ET1 SS said:


> 'unremarkable" ?


Captain of the itty bitty committee?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

colourfastt said:


> And what about those of us who don't believe in so-called morals?


You're missing out on some really tasty mushrooms!


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

D-BOONE said:


> What I hate is the double standard applied The ones who are passing judgment on her probably held their meeting at the local strip club. Who is so perfect that they can decide whats moral for everyone.


Cue "Harper Valley PTA" by Jeannie C. Riley:


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

The lawsuit asks for $3 million if Miranda is not rehired. The school district’s superintendent, the school board’s president, and its vice president declined the Times’s request for comment. But in a statement, the superintendent, Joseph Giani, wrote that he was recommending Miranda’s termination because she “failed to take adequate precautionary measures” to stop the photo from being obtained by students.

Miranda, however, maintains that she did nothing wrong, and that her firing could negatively affect female students. “What message are we sending to them?” Miranda asked at the news conference. “To roll over when your picture gets exposed without your permission or consent?”


Note the reason for her termination, nothing to do with school policy.

https://womenintheworld.com/2019/04...dent-obtained-her-nude-photo-without-consent/


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

For the record, I don't have a problem with topless women in general, (There are exceptions to every rule),and I bet attendance to her class was pretty good.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I read the article in the OP,


I frequently send letters containing photographs. They never are on the internet. Your assuming you know the means of sharing.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> I think a lot of photos are unintendedly released to the public when somebody loses or sells their phone.
> Or of course the phone could’ve been stolen with this intention.
> A student could have hacked the teachers phone just for the purpose of discovering embarrassing things.


This is a very good point...When my daughters were in college, they sometimes had problems with their cell phones. I didn't want to buy them new ones because we wanted to switch carriers. Instead, I purchased a couple of used phones on Ebay from a reputable seller. I gave one phone to one daughter and she brought it back to me about 15 minutes later. There was a photo of a naked Santa Claus on it. I was glad that she was an adult when this happened and we were able to erase the picture. It was obvious that the seller didn't clear everything off of the phone prior to the sale.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

As long as she didn’t force it on the child I don’t see a problem 

Precautionary measures? Should she have to hire a armed guard to STAND watch over any of her possessions?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Based on the knowledge that we have in this thread I would like to see her get her $3 million and anyone in the chain of command of her firing have to pay it not the school district
I’d like to see the young man that revealed her photo do at least a year in jail and if it turns out he also somehow stole that photo another year. 
He should spend at least 12 hours a day of that time with an ugly male math tutor. 

STAMP OUT TATTALERS !


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

TheMartianChick said:


> This is a very good point...When my daughters were in college, they sometimes had problems with their cell phones. I didn't want to buy them new ones because we wanted to switch carriers. Instead, I purchased a couple of used phones on Ebay from a reputable seller. I gave one phone to one daughter and she brought it back to me about 15 minutes later. There was a photo of a naked Santa Claus on it. I was glad that she was an adult when this happened and we were able to erase the picture. It was obvious that the seller didn't clear everything off of the phone prior to the sale.


    I can't imagine!


----------



## Tammy1 (Aug 31, 2011)

It's unfortunate this has happened and I hope she gets her job back but there are consequence for all actions.

As an adult, she choose to send a topless photo over the internet. How many of you have done that? I have not because I know it will be there forever. How come she is exempt from that fear/knowledge. Although wrong, it is a very teachable moment to all kids that the internet is not private.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Tammy1 said:


> As an adult, she choose to send a topless photo over the internet.


 Not if it was sent from phone to phone wouldnt have been over the internet.



wr said:


> As far as sexual discrimination, I'm not quite seeing it. I'm sure that a male teacher would also be terminated under the same circumstances.


WRONG if a male teacher took a picture of their vacation on the beach just wearing shorts and flip flops he wouldnt be fired but if a female teacher took the same photo wearing just the same shorts and flip flops she would be fired. 
sex dis·crim·i·na·tion
[seks dəˌskriməˈnāSHən]
NOUN
sexual discrimination (noun)

discrimination in employment and opportunity against a person (typically a woman) on grounds of sex By law it is SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I frequently send letters containing photographs. They never are on the internet. Your assuming you know the means of sharing.


She took a selfie on her phone.
She probably sent it directly to her "friend" via the internet.

Are you really trying to imply she printed it out and sent it by "snail mail"?
Which scenario is really the most logical?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> probably



That's what I thought.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> That's what I thought.


I see you didn't answer my question about what was most logical.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She took a selfie on her phone.
> She probably sent it directly to her "friend" via the internet.
> 
> Are you really trying to imply she printed it out and sent it by "snail mail"?
> Which scenario is really the most logical?


Ever hi heard of text message?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

If men can show their nipples then so can women. There is nothing immoral about that. She will win.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

I would add that even if she did use the internet in form of e-mail, that is entirely different than posting it openly, thus third-party access would still necessarily be unauthorized and require actions which are unacceptable in nature to obtain the picture.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Ever hi heard of text message?


She sent the picture.

The details about "how" won't change the first sentence.

A student found it.
Now she's reaping the consequences.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tammy1 said:


> As an adult, she choose to send a topless photo over the internet. How many of you have done that?


I can't say that I have, but I did find pictures that I didn't know about of myself swinging with an older woman, so there may be one out there somewhere:


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

My mom has a bunch of pictures of me topless somewhere. Our swimsuits were only panties, kiddie swimsuits were expensive and not worn enough to be worth the expense. 

At least I can't be fired from my job if some kid finds one of those old photos.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Michael W. Smith said:


> You might have very well hit the nail on the head there.
> 
> In our local school district, it states in the teacher's contract that the teachers are to have good moral values - as it's assumed many students will look up to teachers.
> 
> ...


If your local teacher’s contract states the teacher has to have “good moral values” then that particular local teachers’ union needs a better negotiation team. What a teacher does in his or her private life is not the business of the school district. There was an attempt several years ago by my district to require teachers to provide administrators with access to our private Facebook accounts. We told them, very correctly, to stuff that idea and that what we do on our own time is not their business. That teacher with the part time stripping job should have told administration to take a hike. 

I hope the teacher in the OP gets every cent.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The details about "how" won't change the first sentence.
> 
> A student found it.
> Now she's reaping the consequences.


More like the student stole it 
and if privacy laws dont pertain then we dont need search warrants cause they can just bust in any time they want since you have no expectation of privacy .
So HOW does change out come.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> She sent the picture.
> 
> The details about "how" won't change the first sentence.
> 
> ...


Dang another wtong for the week, dorry dude


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see you didn't answer my question about what was most logical.


"I see you didn't answer my question"
Now that's rich. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Dang another *wtong* for the week, *dorry* dude


You mistakenly think saying that means something. 
Maybe if you had used actual words....no, that wouldn't change anything either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> "I see you didn't answer my question"
> Now that's rich. LOL


It's also factual.



D-BOONE said:


> More like the student stole it


It couldn't have been "stolen" if she hadn't sent it, unless you're implying he stole her phone. There's nothing in the report that says that happened.



D-BOONE said:


> So HOW does change out come.


It doesn't change the fact she sent it.
I said nothing about "outcomes"
Go back and read it again.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It couldn't have been "stolen" if she hadn't sent it, unless you're implying he stole her phone. There's nothing in the report that says that happened.


Thats like saying youll never die by never living
she had a right to send it and had a right to expect privacy she broke no laws but the student did if anyone should be punished its the student and the board who fired her.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

D-BOONE said:


> Thats like saying youll never die by never living


No, it's nothing at all like that even though it is factual.



D-BOONE said:


> she had a right to send it and had a right to expect privacy *she broke no laws but the student did* if anyone should be punished its the student and the board who fired her.


No one said she broke any laws.
You don't have to be a criminal to be fired.

What law did the student break?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You mistakenly think saying that means something.
> Maybe if you had used actual words....no, that wouldn't change anything either.


My bad, I was in a hurry.

But you're right you can't admit your mistakes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> But you're right you can't admit your mistakes.


See my previous reply.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

This subject is in GC and GC rules apply.


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

She said she sent it to her now ex boyfriend.
Perhaps he had an axe to grind.
While adults have a right to be playful with technology, I think it is foolish not to recognize how it could be used .


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It couldn't have been "stolen" if she hadn't sent it, unless you're implying he stole her phone. There's nothing in the report that says that happened.


You don't have to worry about burglars if you have nothing of value, but is that what you want to hear from the police when you report a burglary at your home?


----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

People need to be more careful with what they publish and share with others. We had a incident like this about 12 years ago in our school district. We had a male science teacher in his late twenties let go on the spot because of what was on his Facebook account. He was also the girls varsity soccer coach, as he played soccer in college and that is the only reason I know this story as my daughter played for him. So the story goes that he also was a male dancer in one of those troupes catering to women at the bars while in college. So the team get a new volunteer player's mom team manager which he befriends on Facebook who is also friends on Facebook with her daughter a player on the team. Well he still has photos of his dancing days on his Facebook which end up now being circulated through the school, and poof he was gone.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> You don't have to worry about burglars if you have nothing of value, but is that what you want to hear from the police when you report a burglary at your home?


That is exactly the point that doesn't want to be "admitted" by a few people on here.
The woman has a legal right to privacy which was violated, but NOT by the school system.
OTOH, she has a non-legal but moral responsibility to use her common sense about sharing personal info/pictures.
There's enough blame to go around on this and it isn't all weighted on one side.

The school could have handled it differently by acknowledging that it wasn't a great idea to send topless photos between teachers and at the same time not trying to punish her for revealing them publicly, which she didn't do.

There was a time when the punishment fit the crime, back when everybody had more common sense and realized what was really important in life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You don't have to worry about *burglars* if you have nothing of value


They won't know that until after they break in.



farmrbrown said:


> The school could have handled it differently by acknowledging that it wasn't a great idea to send topless photos between teachers and at the same time not trying to punish her for revealing them publicly, which she didn't do.


They aren't necessarily "punishing her for revealing them publicly".
It's for creating the situation by sending the pictures in the first place.

Also, the article is only one side of the story (hers).
There may be other reasons she was fired.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

I bet that the School Board and the school's lawyer and no telling who else HAD to examine the photo before they decided to fire her.

Hmmmmm. Maybe they should be reprimanded for viewing and sharing a photo of a half naked (or as we say down South "nekkid") woman teacher.

We live in a crazy country when marijuana is legal, cities distribute needles to illegal drug users, homosexuality is fine, porn is readily available to anybody with a phone or computer, promiscuity is rampant, violent criminals get a slap on their wrist---but we fire a teacher for having shared a half nude photo with her former boyfriend.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They won't know that until after they break in.
> 
> 
> They aren't necessarily "punishing her for revealing them publicly".
> ...


Yes, I'm aware of that, but I wasn't in "lawyer mode" when I typed that post, trying to precisely pick the exact words out of the millions in the English vocabulary.
The picture is "public" now. It was the student that revealed it publicly and she caught the punishment for it.

I also don't believe the school should be sued for $3 million.
Why not let the teacher keep her job and she chalk it up to a good lesson learned?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Why not let the teacher keep her job and she chalk it up to a good lesson learned?


The school board knows that answer, along with all the details not included in the one sided story we've seen so far.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Lesson here is if you send a photo of your private parts to your lover, crop out your face and any identifying tattoos.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What law did the student break?


N.Y. Penal Law § 155.25


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

D-BOONE said:


> N.Y. Penal Law § 155.25


How do you know he stole it?
What's your evidence?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> It was the student that revealed it publicly and she caught the punishment for it.


Maybe.
Maybe someone else did.

We don't really know.
We've only heard her version so far.

I've heard lots of people say lots of things that are later proven to be false.


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

I have become sceptical about stories of late.
As Bff said, people say a lot of things that turn out false.
The original heatwarming story of the homeless man giving his last 20 to a woman....the go fund me page that generated thousands turned out to be a scam.
Jessie Smollett fiasco....
I have known fellow educators who weren't above playing the system for their gain.
We just don't know all the facts.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

If a woman sends nude pictures of herself to the internet she is really too ignorant to be teaching school. 

On the other hand, the little illegitimate who pulled down the picture and made it public should be neutered.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The little hackers of today can steal stuff off your phone just by being near you. 
As for morals nothing wrong with her morals unless she made it required reading.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The school board knows that answer, along with all the details not included in the one sided story we've seen so far.


Well, that's nice. Kinda like when any gov't official says, "Trust me, I know what I'm doing even if you don't."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Well, that's nice. Kinda like when any gov't official says, "Trust me, I know what I'm doing even if you don't."


They don't have to be "govt officials" to be liars.

They know more about the teacher than anyone relying on the media spin from her and her lawyers.

That's simply the facts.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How do you know he stole it?
> What's your evidence?


If your implication is correct, then receiving stolen property is also illegal


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> If your implication is correct, then *receiving stolen property* is also illegal


It's all over the internet now.
No one can say how it got there.

She gave it away when she hit "send", so it's no longer "her property".


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't have to be "govt officials" to be liars.
> 
> They know more about the teacher than anyone relying on the media spin from her and her lawyers.
> 
> That's simply the facts.


I never said anyone was "lying", only acknowledging that their decisions (all parties) could have been better.
Would relying on the school board's word without knowing all the facts be any wiser?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Would relying on the school board's word without knowing all the facts be any wiser?


What "word"?

She sent the picture.
A student ended up with it.
They decided to fire her.

There's no "word" involved.
The facts have been stipulated.
They know why they fired her.

What would be "wise" would be to let the people involved handle it, and everyone else can worry about their own behavior.



farmrbrown said:


> *I never said anyone was "lying"*, only acknowledging that their decisions (all parties) could have been better.


You implied it when you said:


> farmrbrown said: ↑
> Well, that's nice. Kinda like when any gov't official says, "*Trust me*, I know what I'm doing even if you don't."


You can't trust known liars to do anything other than continue their lies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> If your implication is correct, then receiving stolen property is also illegal


Who said it was "stolen"?
Did you actually read the article?



> "Lauren Miranda was an excellent math teacher by all accounts," Ray said in a written statement. "Long ago, she sent her topless unremarkable selfie to her companion, never to anyone else.
> 
> *By unknown means, a student obtained it.*
> 
> The school district took possession of it, excoriated her, and fired her because her breasts were displayed. This would never have happened to a male teacher."


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

I'm longing for a return to the days when schools only taught reading, writing, and arithmetic.

How they do it in Florida:

-------------------
_Brenda Fischer, a veteran teacher at Western High School in Davie, Fla., faces a three-day suspension for showing her students a video with nude models in positions that some students described as suggestive.

“Fischer showed students … images of a topless female holding the genitals of a male who was naked from the waist down,” the complaint says.

There were also “images of a male kneeling and appearing to stare into the naked genitals of a female standing in front him,” the complaint says.

The complaint accuses Fischer of misconduct in office, incompetence and willful neglect of duty.

Fischer plans to fight the suspension before an administrative law judge. She couldn’t be reached for comment.

The Broward Teachers Union is defending her.

“She teaches art. The video was art,” Union President Anna Fusco said.

Fischer, who has worked for the district since 1992, has a long history of discipline issues.

The state Department of Education said that in March 2017, she “kissed students on the cheek and hugged students without their permission … during class.” She also “placed her arm around the waist of a 15-year old female student and held her for approximately 90 seconds,” making the student feel uncomfortable, a state complaint said. The state gave her a reprimand and fined her $750 in October 2018.

In 2017, she also received a written directive from the district to “refrain from making physical contact with any student, refrain from screaming” at anyone affiliated with the school and treat people at the school in a “respectful manner.”

She received a three-day suspension in 2009 for inappropriate language, and a reprimand in 2014 for “exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement.”

But she also successfully fought a five-day suspension in 2014. A student alleged that she used profanity and improperly grabbed another student’s arm in the Western High parking lot. An administrative law judge overturned the suspension, ordering the district to give her $1,200 in back pay. The judge said the student’s allegations couldn’t be substantiated by anyone else, including the alleged victim._​------------------
https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/new...cle_50b23ce2-92e1-5b34-8a3b-f40757616708.html


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who said it was "stolen"?
> Did you actually read the article?


Get real. If a million dollars disappears from the bank and appears in my house, are you going to stick to "unknown means" ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Had an acquaintance charged with receiving stolen property one time even though he had a bill of sale for $10.
The cop told him when you buy a $500 chainsaw for $10 you know its stolen. 
They used the bill of sale to convict not only the guy that bought it but the guy that had sold it.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

one thing cracks me up.. a teacher is drawn up short for inappropriate language >> have you listened to any teenagers talk lately ??
My nephew is a shop teacher. He explains how not to do a procedure.. some of the students didn't quite get it.. He later heard one of the brighter students telling the other one , in their language, "if you do it that way you will f--k it up" then the student understood..

any other opinions of the original "one sided" report about this teacher is purely speculation. 

I have seen complete nudity (rear) on regular TV.
also frontal (waist up) ..
now if one of those actors were to become teachers, would they be fired also ??


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What "word"?
> 
> She sent the picture.
> A student ended up with it.
> ...


*on what planet?!?*


----------



## Tnff319 (May 28, 2012)

Bearfoot. Let’s assume you are married. Your spouse invites another party into the bedroom of the same sex as you. You engage in activity. 5 years later you and your spouse divorce. Your spouse tells your employer. Should you be terminated for “poor morals”? You engaged in private acts with private people who then violated your trust years later. This girl thought her boyfriend would keep their matters private. He violated that trust or had it stolen. Either way she is the victim. She did not post public nude photos. Are you responsible if a criminal breaks in your home steals a gun and commits a crime? Should have had a better safe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> *Get real.* If a million dollars disappears from the bank and appears in my house, are you going to stick to "unknown means" ?


I am the one being "real".
Making up fantasy scenarios serves no purpose.

No one knows if the student "stole" the picture.
That's clearly stated in the OP article.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tnff319 said:


> Bearfoot. Let’s *assume* you are married.


Let's not make up fairy tales that have nothing to do with the facts of this case.



Tnff319 said:


> She did not post public nude photos.


She took the picture.
She sent the picture to a co-worker.
It became public.
The end results are the same.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I am the one being "real".
> Making up fantasy scenarios serves no purpose.
> 
> No one knows if the student "stole" the picture.
> That's clearly stated in the OP article.


Since you don't like analogies, let me break this down for you in terms easier to understand. 

One of three alternatives necessarily happened:

1. The teacher directly gave the picture to the student.

2. The teacher openly posted the picture and the student found it.

3. The student acquired the picture through nefarious means.

So far as we are informed, the picture was sent privately to one and only one individual who was NOT the student in question.

If you cannot grasp or accept that, I am going to conclude that you are arguing to hear yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> One of *three *alternatives necessarily happened:


Or alternative #4, the one she *sent* it to passed it along to others.
In the end you still can't positively show that the student "stole" anything.
Once she hit "send" it was totally out of her control.

"If *you* cannot grasp or accept that, I am going to conclude that *you* are arguing to hear yourself."

I've understood from the beginning that *no one* knows how the student got the picture.
It's right there in the OP, from the woman's own statement. No fantasies needed.

Don't confuse your own unwillingness or inability to "grasp or accept" the facts as "misunderstanding" on my part.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Or alternative #4, the one she *sent* it to passed it along to others.
> In the end you still can't positively show that the student "stole" anything.
> Once she hit "send" it was totally out of her control.
> 
> ...


No, that falls under the umbrella of nefarious means.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> No, that falls under the umbrella of nefarious means.


That's one *opinion*.

I've seen the picture and all I did was click on a link.

Nothing "nefarious" about that, and nothing at all on the student's part if that's how they got it.

So that just brings us full circle, back to where we started.

No one knows how the picture became "public" other than the teacher started the whole incident herself. 
(Or should that be "her selfie"?)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> For the record, I don't have a problem with topless women in general, (There are exceptions to every rule),and I bet attendance to her class was pretty good.


A rise in attendance, so to speak.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

A responceable person has a Series of naked pictures of their entire body from birth on. 
It’s a valuable diagnostic tool. 
Hard to tell if a mole is changing over a period of years without them


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> responceable person has a Series of naked pictures of their entire body from birth on.


Oh my, then I haven't been responsible. 
Actually I do get checked on a regular basis, my mom had melanoma.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Since she sent it to one person and one person only anyone possessing the picture other than that one person can be charged with possession of stolen property.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I’d bet she also put restrictions on it. 
“ don’t ever show it to anybody ok ?”


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

D-BOONE said:


> Since she sent it to one person and one person only anyone possessing the picture other than that one person can be charged with possession of stolen property.


You keep saying that but it's simply not true.
There's no evidence anyone "stole" anything.

She gave it away.
It was no longer "hers" at the instant she hit "send".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I’d bet she also put restrictions on it.
> “ don’t ever show it to anybody ok ?”


Unless she has that in writing it's meaningless.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

But... She is going SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION. She isn't claiming she didn't do it, but that she is being discriminated against for being a woman. She might actually have a case there.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

whiterock said:


> But... She is going SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION. She isn't claiming she didn't do it, but that she is being discriminated against for being a woman. She might actually have a case there.


Interesting legal position.

Have the courts ever ruled that it's OK for men to go topless (say, on a public beach), but not women?

That could get really confusing in today's era of sexually confused people with men who think they are women and women who think they are men. 

I can hear it now: "Yes, sir. I know I LOOK like a woman, and I have nice large breasts . . . but I think of myself as a man; so I wear a man's swim suit like all those other guys on the beach."


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> A responceable person has a Series of naked pictures of their entire body from birth on.
> It’s a valuable diagnostic tool.
> Hard to tell if a mole is changing over a period of years without them


That's an angle I hadn't thought about, but you're right.
A private photo/image taken with consent and meant to stay private.
There are people going thru airports today getting "selfie's" too.




whiterock said:


> But... She is going SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION. She isn't claiming she didn't do it, but that she is being discriminated against for being a woman. She might actually have a case there.


I disagree with the premise and the outcome her lawyers are seeking. They should go after privacy violation, as the examples above.

BTW, even if there IS something about those images in a written consent form, I doubt most people bother to read it or know about it, and none of them cover hacking by high school students. That's where the crime if any was committed.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

If I'm correct, the moral clause is vaguely stated in most teacher contracts. It is usually there. A teacher in a metroplex school district was fired about 10 years ago when she gave birth to twins out of wedlock.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

whiterock said:


> If I'm correct, the moral clause is vaguely stated in most teacher contracts. It is usually there. A teacher in a metroplex school district was fired about 10 years ago when she gave birth to twins out of wedlock.


Wow. I knew they used to have those clauses, just like I knew of dry counties that prohibited alcohol but I thought most of them were extinct by now, lol.

That's really what this issue is about - privacy.
If you're not teaching "bad morals" in your classroom or in a public forum (physical or ethereal), then everyone should leave you alone, including your employer.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I’d like to know if all the teachers in the school district would be fired. If they have a bf or gf. 
Are they fired for taking showeres nude ? After all a kid could get a peek with a micro drone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I doubt most people bother to read it or know about it, and none of them cover hacking by high school students.


There's no evidence of any "hacking".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> If you're not teaching "bad morals" in your classroom or in a public forum (physical or ethereal), then everyone should leave you alone, including your employer.


What if your *behavior* proves you have "bad morals"?
People can pretend they are "moral" when in reality they are trying to fool everyone.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What if your *behavior* proves you have "bad morals"?
> People can pretend they are "moral" when in reality they are trying to fool everyone.


Well, that question could be put in the hypothetical or "fantasy" box. You know, one of those "what if" questions that are fairly common in these discussions.

Such as........


Tnff319 said:


> Bearfoot. Let’s assume you are married. Your spouse invites another party into the bedroom of the same sex as you. You engage in activity. 5 years later you and your spouse divorce. Your spouse tells your employer. Should you be terminated for “poor morals”? You engaged in private acts with private people who then violated your trust years later. This girl thought her boyfriend would keep their matters private. He violated that trust or had it stolen. Either way she is the victim. She did not post public nude photos. Are you responsible if a criminal breaks in your home steals a gun and commits a crime? Should have had a better safe.


Believe it or not, there are some posters that will automatically refuse to answer such questions.


But I'll give you my opinion anyway, since you asked.
I don't necessarily believe that an instance of "bad behavior" equates to a person having "bad morals".
The only thing it "proves" is that none of us are perfect.
That reply you just quoted was edited by me because the last sentence referenced a bible passage and I remembered that's a topic that usually gets bounced out of GC, sometimes with good reason.

The sentence I retracted was.....

I believe the ultimate Judge already ruled on that precedent in John chapter 8.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I don't necessarily believe that *an instance* of "bad behavior" equates to a person having "bad morals".


The school board disagrees.
"An instance" implies a one time thing.
Some behavior is more of a lifestyle.



farmrbrown said:


> Believe it or not, there are some posters that will automatically refuse to answer such questions.


They can't blow their own cover.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no evidence of any "hacking".


Please recall my previous set of possibilities

We are left with the student acquiring the photo through some manner of nefarious activity by means of either unauthorized release on the part of the boyfriend or else electronic theft of some form generally known as hacking.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Please recall my previous set of *possibilities*


I said "evidence", not speculation or opinion.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The school board disagrees.
> "An instance" implies a one time thing.
> Some behavior is more of a lifestyle.


Yep.
Furthermore, some are content to pass/accept judgement without hearing all the evidence or any other side of the story.



Bearfootfarm said:


> The school board knows that answer, along with all the details not included in the one sided story we've seen so far.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> Furthermore, some are content to pass/accept judgement without hearing all the evidence or any other side of the story.


I'd definately like to hear quite a bit more than a lawyer's opinion. I'd like to know if the woman was in fact in a relationship with the gentleman the picture was sent to, how the picture was sent, if it was actually sent to someone else or was this something she posted on her own FB page for boyfriend to see and forgot to change her settings, etc. 

The only information we have at this point is the information her lawyer wants the public to have.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Next cleanup and the thread will be locked.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Furthermore, some are content to pass/accept judgement without hearing all the evidence or any other side of the story.


Not every issue has "sides".
Some things are a simple yes or no, if answered honestly.

Sometimes the evidence all leads to the same conclusion.
A refusal to answer is an answer in itself.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)




----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

That's funny stuff there.
The photographic evidence is the best type since it's impossible to deny.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

She will be suing based on discrimination. That would render any morals clause mute. If a man can have pictures of his nipples out there then they can not discriminate against a woman for the same thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> She will be suing based on discrimination.


Yes, that was stated 120 posts back.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Yeah, they lost getting topless beaches here legal on that argument...…...every one I knew was all for it and so were the local businesses.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

In most US cities and states, a woman can be topless where ever a man can. 

Here's a map. https://gotopless.org/topless-laws


----------



## manfred (Dec 21, 2005)

Imstuck on the comment that the photos of her breasts were unremarkable. Thats what she should be suing about.


----------



## nehimama (Jun 18, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> In most US cities and states, a woman can be topless where ever a man can.
> 
> Here's a map. https://gotopless.org/topless-laws


Legal, perhaps, but I'd be a blight on the community if *I* tried it. Not going there!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nehimama said:


> Legal, perhaps, but I'd be a blight on the community if *I* tried it. Not going there!


I'm not a topless person either... the startling white (with a bizillion freckles) of my upper torso would blind people and cause accidents.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not a topless person either... the startling white (with a bizillion freckles) of my upper torso would blind people and cause accidents.


Prove it !
We are willing to take our chances !


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It occurs to me that the child must have obtained the photo by nefarious means or the school board would have been obligated to pursue charges against a adult giving it to him.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not a topless person either... the startling white (with a bizillion freckles) of my upper torso would blind people and cause accidents.


 I think you may have exaggerated a little bit I love freckles so come on over and I’ll count them for you ..


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Irish Pixie has a (not so) secret admirer!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

IndyDave said:


> Irish Pixie has a (not so) secret admirer!


Creepy uncle posts...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> How do I know all of this? Because she took a great portion of each period to blather on about all of the above, to the point it was, as my son put it, "cringy". Ten minutes of teaching, 40 minutes of blathering.


In High School, the students only get an hour of it. My son's 3rd grade teacher was going through a bad divorce. If you have ever known anyone going through a divorce, that's all they think about. He ranted about her for months. My son's 4th grade teacher was an avid bow hunter. That year he shot an 8 point buck. He talked about that for weeks.

In this OP she didn't post on the internet, but in a personal communication with a lover.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *In most US cities and states*, a woman can be topless where ever a man can.


In most US cities and states, employers can fire "at will".
They don't have to follow internet opinions.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Creepy uncle posts...


 How’s it creepy ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> It occurs to me that the child must have obtained the photo *by nefarious means* or the school board would have been obligated to pursue charges against a adult giving it to him.


You're making assumptions again.
The picture is on the internet.
Anyone can find it now, and no one is certain how it got there to begin with.
Everyone wants to blame someone other than the *one person* who could have prevented the entire situation.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> In most US cities and states, employers can fire "at will".
> They don't have to follow internet opinions.


Hat only holds up until they cite an unlawful reason or a court finds that to have been the case.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

IndyDave said:


> Hat only holds up until they cite an unlawful reason or a court finds that to have been the case.


Exactly. Much like this woman is doing, and my opinion is that she'll win.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're making assumptions again.
> The picture is on the internet.
> Anyone can find it now, and no one is certain how it got there to begin with.
> Everyone wants to blame someone other than the *one person* who could have prevented the entire situation.


The only person to blame is the one who made the photo available outside its intended audience. Your argument is as preposterous as saying that this would not have happened should she have chosen to be a plumber rather than a teacher.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Hat only holds up until they cite an unlawful reason or a court finds that to have been the case.


How does that change *what I said*?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How does that change *what I said*?


It probably doesn't disagree with what you meant but you made an open-ended statement without accounting for that very significant caveat.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> The only person to blame is the one who made the photo


Exactly.



IndyDave said:


> Your argument is as preposterous as saying that this would not have happened should she have chosen to be a plumber rather than a teacher.


That's your fantasy, not mine.

If *she* hadn't sent the picture she'd still be employed.
It's reality whether you like it or not.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Creepy uncle posts...


Curiosity got the best of me. I had to look at the posts. Sorry I did. The posts are out of bounds for friendly internet chat. Now I will put the wonderful disappear function back so I don't have to see any more.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> *It probably doesn't disagree with what you meant* but you made an open-ended statement without accounting for that very significant caveat.


I didn't spell out every possibility.
*What I said* is accurate.

You want to argue about what I *didn't* say.
That's not my problem.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Ixnay on the olltray.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> The posts are *out of bounds* for friendly internet chat.


Yeah, she probably shouldn't be "putting down fellow posters" by calling them creepy and calling them trolls:



Irish Pixie said:


> Ixnay on the olltray.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Curiosity got the best of me. I had to look at the posts. Sorry I did. The posts are out of bounds for friendly internet chat. Now I will put the wonderful disappear function back so I don't have to see any more.


 In this thread about body shaming she wanted to shame light-skinned and freckled women I thought it was important to let it be understood that both those things are considered attractive. 
I may have been wrong but I thought some humor might not hurt this thread at all. 
I think most of us know that Irish pixie is a lady a rather modest sensibilities and I do not believe anyone expected her to except my challenge or offer .


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't spell out every possibility.
> *What I said* is accurate.
> 
> You want to argue about what I *didn't* say.
> That's not my problem.


There is a reason why in court they make you swear not only to tell the truth but the entire truth. You told a half-truth which introduced a significant element of falsehood.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> There is a reason why in court they make you swear not only to tell the truth but the entire truth. You told a half-truth which introduced a significant element of falsehood.


You're still complaining about things I *didn't* say.
What I *did* say remains factual, regardless.

If you want to see "falsehood", go back and read all the made up versions of how the student got the picture. 

Where was your concern for total honesty then?

Why aren't you complaining about everything everyone else didn't say?

(It's rhetorical..I already know why. Patterns never change.)


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're still complaining about things I *didn't* say.
> What I *did* say remains factual, regardless.
> 
> If you want to see "falsehood", go back and read all the made up versions of how the student got the picture.
> ...


You are right. Patterns never change, and you dearly love sitting in judgment even while displaying a clear lack of understanding of truth.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> That's your fantasy, not mine.
> ...


Based on your position here, would it be a fair guess that you oppose the legislation shielding gun manufacturers from liability for misuse of their products on the grounds that had they never been manufactured, they could not be misused?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You are right. Patterns never change, and you dearly love sitting in judgment even while displaying a clear lack of understanding of truth.


I understand the "truth".
You keep trying to change the topic.

The truth is, had *she* not sent the picture, she'd still be employed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> Based on your position here, would it be a fair guess that you oppose the legislation shielding gun manufacturers from liability for misuse of their products on the grounds that had they never been manufactured, they could not be misused?


No manufacturers should be liable for the actions of others who use their products.
In this case though, the teacher's *actions* caused the entire problem.
The "product" (picture) wasn't a problem until she sent it to someone herself.

If you want to talk about "gun control *legislation*" you should start a new thread in the correct section.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No manufacturers should be liable for the actions of others who use their products.
> In this case though, the teacher's *actions* caused the entire problem.
> The "product" (picture) wasn't a problem until she sent it to someone herself.
> 
> If you want to talk about "gun control *legislation*" you should start a new thread in the correct section.


No, the example demonstrating the egregious inconsistency in your thinking fits just fine here.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> In most US cities and states, a woman can be topless where ever a man can.
> 
> Here's a map. https://gotopless.org/topless-laws


Well shucks, my PC doesn't want to go there


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

IndyDave said:


> No, the example demonstrating the egregious inconsistency in your thinking fits just fine here.


Boys, boys.....we were talking about boobs.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Cornhusker said:


> Boys, boys.....we were talking about boobs.


True enough but I would still like to hear him try to make a reasonable explanation of how on product's misuse by another party is the sole responsibility of the producer while another producer in an analogous situation does not bear responsibility for misuse of the product.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Boys, boys.....we were talking about boobs.


No, we're not. We're talking about a woman who was terminated from her job.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Because of boobs


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> No, the example demonstrating the egregious inconsistency in your thinking fits just fine here.


Again you are trying to change the topic.
There's nothing inconsistent in what I've said.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lot of boobs in this thread


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> No, we're not. We're talking about a woman who was terminated from her job.


For showing her boobs.
Don't leave out any relevant details.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Lot of boobs in this thread


And like those in the OP, they are pretty much "unremarkable".


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bottom line, she was fired for a topless photo. Had a male teacher sent a topless photo of himself to a lover and a student found it and posted it, no one would have raised an eyebrow and he certainly would not have been fired. She was also fired on grounds that had nothing to do with her teaching ability. The district is in the wrong here.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> True enough but I would still like to hear him try to make* a reasonable explanation* of how on product's misuse by another party is the sole responsibility of the producer while another producer in an analogous situation does not bear responsibility for misuse of the product.


I already answered that.
You pretended not to see it.

It's still there if you scroll back and read what I actually said.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> Bottom line, she was fired for a topless photo. Had a male teacher sent a topless photo of himself to a lover and a student found it and posted it, no one would have raised an eyebrow and he certainly would not have been fired.


Can you show an actual case where that has happened?
It sounds like you're just paraphrasing the OP argument.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Can you show an actual case where that has happened?
> It sounds like you're just paraphrasing the OP argument.


Many male teachers who I know personally have posted topless photos of themselves online and not one word was said.

A female teacher I know personally was issued a formal reprimand because she had the top two buttons of her blouse unbuttoned while male teachers who also had the same buttons open on their shirts were not. She filed a grievance and won. As she should have.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again you are trying to change the topic.
> There's nothing inconsistent in what I've said.


You must not understand the concept of objective principle.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It seldom makes the paper when the coach chooses to play On the skins team. 
Only if he plays with them .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> Many male teachers who I know personally have posted topless photos of themselves online and not one word was said.


That's not what I asked.
You're repeating what was stated in the OP.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You must not understand the concept of *objective* principle.


I understand your "objective".


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not what I asked.
> You're repeating what was stated in the OP.


SSDD. You once again make the arrogant argument that your theory is superior to actual results.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Indy have you ever wrassled a hog?
You ain’t gonna knock any sense into him. 
Eventually you realize no matter what happens he enjoys wrasseling in the mud.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I understand your "objective".


Objective, as in applying the same standard to everyone. Try it some time.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Indy have you ever wrassled a hog?
> You ain’t gonna knock any sense into him.
> Eventually you realize no matter what happens he enjoys wrasseling in the mud.


Excellent point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> You once again make the arrogant argument that your theory is superior to actual results.


It wasn't a theory.



IndyDave said:


> Objective, as in applying the same standard to everyone. Try it some time.


I do that now and it always upsets you.
You seem determined to get this thread locked.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It wasn't a theory.
> 
> 
> I do that now and it always upsets you.
> You seem determined to get this thread locked.


This post is more imaginative than I care to deal with.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

SLFarmMI said:


> Bottom line, she was fired for a topless photo. Had a male teacher sent a topless photo of himself to a lover and a student found it and posted it, no one would have raised an eyebrow and he certainly would not have been fired. She was also fired on grounds that had nothing to do with her teaching ability. The district is in the wrong here.



Sad thing is that will not be challenged,...it will be on discrimination, which it is not or womens rights which it is not...…...its about a school entity making up morality laws and doing what they please.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not what I asked.
> You're repeating what was stated in the OP.


That’s precisely what you asked. You appear to be of the opinion that a male teacher who had a topless photo posted online would have experienced the same repercussions as the female teacher in the OP. When provided with real life examples showing no consequences for topless photos of male teachers, you deny asking the question.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

shawnlee said:


> Sad thing is that will not be challenged,...it will be on discrimination, which it is not or womens rights which it is not...…...its about a school entity making up morality laws and doing what they please.


True enough. Had it been me, I would have sued on multiple grounds.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> That’s *precisely* what you asked.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Can you *show* an actual case where that has happened?


I asked if you could show an actual case.
You gave an unsupported anecdote.



SLFarmMI said:


> *You appear* to be of the opinion that a male teacher who had a topless photo posted online would have experienced the same repercussions as the female teacher in the OP.


I never said any such thing.
The whole thread has fallen precisely along "party" lines.



SLFarmMI said:


> When provided with real life examples showing no consequences for topless photos of male teachers, you deny asking the question.


You've shown no "examples".
You've told some stories.

So around and around we go.........
The patterns never change.
The evidence is irrefutable.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

I have come to the conclusion there is no such person as Bearfootfarm. He has implicitly claimed to exist but has never proven or given a solid example of his alleged existence.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It could be a bot.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

I guess one thing that bothers me is that we are trying to lump boys and girls in the same category. Like it or not we are different and we have different anatomical parts. If someone comes up behind a guy and grabs him by his chest no big deal(though the person grabbing might get flatted). If that same thing is done to a woman sexual harassment.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

SLFarmMI said:


> Bottom line, she was fired for a topless photo. Had a male teacher sent a topless photo of himself to a lover and a student found it and posted it, no one would have raised an eyebrow and he certainly would not have been fired. She was also fired on grounds that had nothing to do with her teaching ability. The district is in the wrong here.





SLFarmMI said:


> Many male teachers who I know personally have posted topless photos of themselves online and not one word was said.
> 
> A female teacher I know personally was issued a formal reprimand because she had the top two buttons of her blouse unbuttoned while male teachers who also had the same buttons open on their shirts were not. She filed a grievance and won. As she should have.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Can you show an actual case where that has happened?
> It sounds like you're just paraphrasing the OP argument.


This wasn't online or lover-to-lover, but I think it goes beyond a comparable example of double standard.

https://oralcancernews.org/wp/too-hot-for-teacher/


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Have you ever noticed that some people can never admit when they are wrong even when faced with the facts they just keep saying the same thing over and over like repeating it will make it less wrong.
Reminds me of a train wreck no one wants to see it but they just cant look away.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> This wasn't online or lover-to-lover, but I think it goes beyond a comparable example of double standard.
> 
> https://oralcancernews.org/wp/too-hot-for-teacher/


And, imagine that, not one of those male teachers was fired for being shirtless. Thanks for the link. I might need a new calendar.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> *I have come to the conclusion there is no such person as Bearfootfarm. *He has implicitly claimed to exist but has never proven or given a solid example of his alleged existence.


You've spent more time talking about me than you have spent on the actual topic.



> *This wasn't online or lover-to-lover*, but I think it goes beyond a comparable example of double standard.
> 
> https://oralcancernews.org/wp/too-hot-for-teacher/


Then the example isn't similar in anyway aside from involving teachers.

No one said there were no double standards.
We've still only heard the teacher's side of the story.

There may be other reasons for the firing that she didn't mention.
I don't know why simple facts seem to anger some people so much.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> And, imagine that, not one of those male teachers was fired for being shirtless. Thanks for the link. I might need a new calendar.


It's a 10 year old article.
He had to dig that deep to find one.
They are probably cheap now.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then the example isn't similar in anyway aside from involving teachers.


And it also was from Florida, not New York!


It's true, I couldn't find an example of a privately shared topless photo from a male teacher, there are online ones from social media sites, but searching for photos of hunky guys on the internet isn't really my thing. 





> No one said there were no double standards.
> We've still only heard the teacher's side of the story.
> 
> There may be other reasons for the firing that she didn't mention.
> I don't know why simple facts seem to anger some people so much.


Maybe, but so far that's not what the facts state.
From the original link.....



> *"Lauren Miranda was an excellent math teacher by all accounts," Ray said in a written statement. *"Long ago, she sent her topless unremarkable selfie to her companion, never to anyone else. By unknown means, a student obtained it. The school district took possession of it, excoriated her, and fired her because her breasts were displayed. *This would never have happened to a male teacher."*
> 
> Ray's law firm has released the selfie to the media and provided court documents claiming that the Long Island district had objectified women in its handling of the situation. *The district claimed Miranda was not a good role model because of the photo, the documents say.*


https://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/teacher-selfie-south-country-fired-1.29258163



> Miranda, a SUNY Oneonta graduate with a master’s degree from Stony Brook University, said she had received excellent evaluations from administrators during the nearly four years she taught in the district. She brought copies of them to the news conference.
> 
> In her evaluation for this past school year, Miranda received the top rating in almost every category, according to the document. Miranda “demonstrated in this lesson to be an outstanding math instructor, knowledgeable of her content area, but most of all genuinely dedicated to the academic progress of all of her students,” read one evaluation.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a 10 year old article.
> He had to dig that deep to find one.
> They are probably cheap now.


Yeah, I know the date on the article. The last bit was a joke which apparently you missed.

The point, which you also missed, is that these two situations are pretty much a direct parallel as the facts in both articles were stated. Boiled down, in both cases, teachers were photographed shirtless and the photographs were published. One teacher was fired and the others were not. Gender was the only substantive difference between the two cases.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

Since we started having schools teachers were held at a different standard, nothing new here. At one time they couldn't be married and had to be at school to get the building clean and the stove stoked for heat. Almost if not all schools have a condition in the contract that prohibits a teacher from straying from the so called social norms ( norms may change but never the less its usually up to the board). So do many fortune 500 company's, judges and other people that are looked upon as a role model or image of a place. Really don't understand why this is such a public draw. If you are in a profession that deals with children , you will be looked at differently than folks in other jobs. (if you influence kids and are paid for it , that may not be a bad thing)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> It's true, I couldn't find an example of a privately shared topless photo from a male teacher


I didn't think there would be any.



farmrbrown said:


> Maybe, but so far that's not what the facts state.
> From the original link.....


Repeating it won't change it.
That's still her one sided version of events.

People will lie to get what they want.
I see that every day.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> Yeah, I know the date on the article. The last bit was a joke which apparently you missed.
> 
> The point, which you also missed, is that these two situations are pretty much a direct parallel as the facts in both articles were stated. Boiled down, in both cases, teachers were photographed shirtless and the photographs were published. One teacher was fired and the others were not. Gender was the only substantive difference between the two cases.



This is still an issue, even if this article was 10 years old.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> The last bit was a joke which apparently you missed.


No, I didn't miss anything.



SLFarmMI said:


> *Boiled down*, in both cases, teachers were photographed shirtless and the photographs were published. One teacher was fired and the others were not. *Gender was the only substantive difference between the two cases.*


That's not the whole truth.
We all know that already.

"Boiled down" you've just repeated the claims in the OP, just as I stated the first time you posted.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

siberian said:


> Since we started having schools teachers were held at a different standard, nothing new here. At one time they couldn't be married and had to be at school to get the building clean and the stove stoked for heat. Almost if not all schools have a condition in the contract that prohibits a teacher from straying from the so called social norms ( norms may change but never the less its usually up to the board). So do many fortune 500 company's, judges and other people that are looked upon as a role model or image of a place. Really don't understand why this is such a public draw. If you are in a profession that deals with children , you will be looked at differently than folks in other jobs. (if you influence kids and are paid for it , that may not be a bad thing)


Actually, it is not the case that “most, if not all schools have a condition in the contract that prohibits a teacher from straying from the so called social norms”. I have taught in several district in multiple states and never was any language to that effect present in any contract I worked under.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't think there would be any.


Me either. 
The whole point of privately exchanging something is so that others CAN'T see it.
The link I posted was one that was intentionally made public and there were no consequences for the teacher when it did go public. 


> Repeating it won't change it.
> That's still her one sided version of events.
> 
> People will lie to get what they want.
> I see that every day.


One sided it may be, but it's documented. Do you have proof of your "maybes"?


Bearfootfarm said:


> There may be other reasons for the firing that she didn't mention.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I didn't miss anything.
> 
> 
> That's not the whole truth.
> ...


I challenge you to point out the substantive differences between the two cases.

Both cases involve teachers who were photographed shirtless.
Both cases involve those photographs being distributed.
Both cases involve teachers who were described as good teachers.
Those are the basic facts of both cases.


----------



## altair (Jul 23, 2011)

To me, a shirtless man and a shirtless woman aren't the same. Society has made breasts forbidden and sexual so men can do yard work, walk on the side of the road, and drive a car shirtless but if a woman did there would be an uproar in some fashion. So that argument isn't comparing apples to apples to me.

That said, I don't think she should have gotten fired. I would like to know how the boy got the photo to start with as it was originally sent privately (or as much as one can consider privately). If he found it on "the cloud" or whatever, that's one thing. But if one of the teachers sent it to him, that's a lot more serious.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> I challenge you to point out the substantive *differences* between the two cases.


That's already been pointed out more than once.



farmrbrown said:


> One sided it may be, but it's documented. *Do you have proof of your "maybes"*?


Just as much as everyone else's "maybes".

So that once more brings us back to the *irrefutable* facts from the OP.

Her *action *in sending the picture to a co-worker *caused* all her problems.
It's "documented" no one knows how the student(s) got it.

Whether or not it's all "fair" is a matter of opinion.

We both know people will lie about things to get what they want, even while pretending they care about being honest.

I have lots of proof of that.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Dat ol boy he may be muddy but him still wrasseling....... and grinning


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> Miranda, however, maintains that she did nothing wrong, and that her firing could negatively affect *female students*. *“What message are we sending to them?*” Miranda asked at the news conference. “To roll over when your picture gets exposed without your permission or consent?”


How about:
"Don't send nude pictures to people if you don't want to risk having the whole world see them."? 
That's a good message for female students and teachers too.



SLFarmMI said:


> Actually, it is not the case that “most, if not all schools have a condition in the contract that prohibits a teacher from straying from the so called social norms”. I have taught in several district in multiple states and never was any language to that effect present in any contract I worked under.


https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=elj



> Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal
> MORALS CLAUSES FOR EDUCATORS IN SECONDARY AND POST SECONDARY SCHOOLS: LEGAL APPLICATIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No nude pictures were exchanged. No private parts were shown. Women have every right to be top less as men do. She will win this.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's already been pointed out more than once.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So...........as I thought, no proof that she was fired for "other reasons" and her past teacher evaluations are now part of the court records.
It's better to stick to the facts instead of slinging unfounded allegations to bolster one's opinion.
It's ok to have a different opinion, that's part of life.
It's having the courage to do so without trying to hurt someone else that makes the difference.
Yes, the truth can be hurtful by itself (anticipating the predictable reply). That's why it isn't necessary to add insult to injury with unsupported falsehoods.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Ziptie said:


> I guess one thing that bothers me is that we are trying to lump boys and girls in the same category. Like it or not we are different and we have different anatomical parts. If someone comes up behind a guy and grabs him by his chest no big deal(though the person grabbing might get flatted). If that same thing is done to a woman sexual harassment.


The idea of a man going shirtless and a woman going shirtless is the same is absurd.


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

Our school held an assembly last year concerning the dangers of the various technologies students are exposed to and regularly interact with.
Discussed was how potential employers will peruse social media accounts as part of a background check.
Sexting was also discussed, emphasizing that the minute you hit send, it can be out there for the world to see...privacy may be expected but it is an illusion.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

SLFarmMI said:


> Many male teachers who I know personally have posted topless photos of themselves online and not one word was said.
> 
> A female teacher I know personally was issued a formal reprimand because she had the top two buttons of her blouse unbuttoned while male teachers who also had the same buttons open on their shirts were not. She filed a grievance and won. As she should have.


Like it or not, there are differences between men and women.
It might not be fair, but that's how it is.
Remember, we are dealing with young people OD'd on hormones, and they can't help but see that teacher as a sexual object.
That being said, I don't think she should have been fired for it, but I have to acknowledge women's breasts are not the same as a man's chest in anybody's mind.
I say let her teach if she's a good teacher, the only thing she did wrong was trusting someone.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A woman's breast may be more pleasant to look at to some than a man's but the only real difference is that they can feed a child. Any body part can be sexualized by someone. That, however, does not give a school the right to treat men and women different. If men can have pictured taken of their nipples and not get fired then women have the same rights.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Ziptie said:


> I guess one thing that bothers me is that we are trying to lump boys and girls in the same category. Like it or not we are different and we have different anatomical parts. If someone comes up behind a guy and grabs him by his chest no big deal(though the person grabbing might get flatted). If that same thing is done to a woman sexual harassment.


It's fairly simple- don't touch _anyone_ without permission.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

HDRider said:


> The idea of a man going shirtless and a woman going shirtless is the same is absurd.


Explain....


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

HDRider said:


> The idea of a man going shirtless and a woman going shirtless is the same is absurd.


All things being equal, I would agree. That said, with the general state of our society, the things that are routinely tolerated and accepted, and also the fact that an illegal alien gets more due process than this teacher, I can't justify having a generally amoral society but keeping a cutout or two where we go all 7th century Arabia on one subset of the population.

If we are going to abandon traditional values, which for the most part we already have, then let there be one rule or no rule.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

doozie said:


> Explain....


My opinion on this is the same as what some already said on this thread, mainly that there IS a difference between a topless man and a topless woman and I definitely have different reactions upon seeing photos of each, last time I checked anyway.
But there's also a difference between someone recklessly *trying* to get fired and being set up for it by another person.

She may win her lawsuit by means of equality, but I don't believe the majority would ever say they get "equal" feelings from looking at a woman and a man. Even the woman teacher realized THAT when she sent the selfie, right?


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> My opinion on this is the same as what some already said on this thread, mainly that there IS a difference between a topless man and a topless woman and I definitely have different reactions upon seeing photos of each, last time I checked anyway.
> But there's also a difference between someone recklessly *trying* to get fired and being set up for it by another person.
> 
> She may win her lawsuit by means of equality, but I don't believe the majority would ever say they get "equal" feelings from looking at a woman and a man. Even the woman teacher realized THAT when she sent the selfie, right?


So...if my reaction to a buff topless male bodybuilder is different from yours.....????what then?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> A woman's breast may be more pleasant to look at to some than a man's but the only real difference is that they can feed a child. Any body part can be sexualized by someone. That, however, does not give a school the right to treat men and women different. If men can have pictured taken of their nipples and not get fired then women have the same rights.


I tend to agree with you, but the worst place that picture could have surfaced was in the hands of a student.
I think I'd be looking more at whoever leaked that picture to the students. sharing pictures of semi nude women with a kid seems kinda creepy.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I tend to agree with you, but the worst place that picture could have surfaced was in the hands of a student.
> I think I'd be looking more at whoever leaked that picture to the students. sharing pictures of semi nude women with a kid seems kinda creepy.


I also would like to know how the students got the picture. I don't agree that it was leaked. It could have been stolen.

Either way that is not germane to her proposed court case.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

We had a female HR director years ago, who put up a beefcake calendar in the shared restroom.
She made the guys in maintenance take down their girly calendar, even though it had no nudity, just girls in Daisy Dukes and bikinis leaning on cars.
Men aren't the only ones who note the difference between a chest and boobs.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I also would like to know how the students got the picture. I don't agree that it was leaked. It could have been stolen.
> 
> Either way that is not germane to her proposed court case.


No, it's really not, but I do think it's a more serious offence than having her picture wind up in the hands of a student through no fault of her own.
Now, if she had posted it online or sent to a student herself, then yeah, she's probably done teaching.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Do you know what I find morally repugnant? Firing a teacher that is apparently pretty good at her job over some petty thing. 
The damage of loss of math skills I’m sure would be far more than the damage of teenagers discovering breasts on a teacher.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *It's better to stick to the facts* instead of slinging unfounded allegations to bolster one's opinion.
> It's ok to have a different opinion, that's part of life.


One should always practice what they preach.



farmrbrown said:


> Yes, *the truth can be hurtful* by itself (anticipating the predictable reply). That's why it isn't necessary to add insult to injury with *unsupported* falsehoods.


It's mainly "hurtful" to the liars who rely on falsehoods and pretend claims are "unsupported".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> That, however, does not give a school the right to treat men and women different. If men can have pictured taken of their nipples and not get fired then women have the same rights.


If a man walks up and touches another man's nipple, he's not charged with "*sexual* assault".

If a man does it to a woman, he would be.

Men should have to right to touch women's breasts and not be charged with a "sex crime", using your "logic". After all, they are "equal".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I also would like to know how the students got the picture. I don't agree that it was leaked. It *could have been* stolen.


It *could have been* "leaked" by the teacher herself so she could set up the school to be sued.

*If we are going to fantasize*, we have to consider all the possibilities and not just the ones that fit your preconceived notions.

The whole thing *could be* "fake news".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Men aren't the only ones who *note the difference* between a chest and boobs.


Everyone knows there's a difference.
The ones claiming they don't aren't being honest about it now because they wouldn't be able to argue about it.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If a man walks up and touches another man's nipple, he's not charged with "*sexual* assault".


But they can be if the assault was sexual in nature.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

D-BOONE said:


> But they can be *if* the assault was sexual in nature.


I described the scenario.
One would automatically be assumed to be "sexual" in the real world.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

D-BOONE said:


> But they can be if the assault was sexual in nature.


If touched by another man, I would be the one charged with assault.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If a man walks up and touches another man's nipple, he's not charged with "*sexual* assault".
> 
> If a man does it to a woman, he would be.
> 
> Men should have to right to touch women's breasts and not be charged with a "sex crime", using your "logic". After all, they are "equal".


He could file charges though.
What if a woman walks up and touches a mans nipple? You don't think he could file charges if the touching is unwanted?

Logic!

Reminds me of an old song lyric, LOL
"Don't tell me no (lies or lines) and keep your hands to yourself"


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sexual harrasement to be charged usually needs to be pervasive and sustained. Just touching someone's nipples once would be more in the assault range, if charged and the sex of the person has no bearing on whether charges can be made.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

doozie said:


> He could file charges though.


When it's done to a female, it's generally *presumed* to be "sexual".
It has nothing to do with "unwanted", since that would be the same in either case.

"Assault on a female" is a more serious crime than "assault".
Is anyone protesting against that "inequality"?



doozie said:


> Reminds me of an old song lyric, LOL
> "*Don't tell me no lies* and keep your hands to yourself"


I believe in that too.

Some don't, and they don't like to face that reality either.
But that's a different topic.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

doozie said:


> Explain....





doozie said:


> So...if my reaction to a buff topless male bodybuilder is different from yours.....????what then?


Umm........I dunno.
It doesn't mean a double date is outta the question, but we may have to split up if we go clothes shopping for our mates.
Just sayin.


I only meant the obvious, that if one has a certain feeling/reaction toward one sex, chances are it ain't the same for a picture of the other one.
Of course if you're bisexual, this might be a multiple choice test.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> Actually, it is not the case that “most, if not all schools have a condition in the contract that prohibits a teacher from straying from the so called social norms”. I have taught in several district in multiple states and never was any language to that effect present in any contract I worked under.



I as well, and have seen it over and over. Usually up to superintendents discretion and /or board


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Umm........I dunno.
> It doesn't mean a double date is outta the question, but we may have to split up if we go clothes shopping for our mates.
> Just sayin.
> 
> ...


I'm just sayin there is no difference between a topless photo of either sex whether it gets a reaction, or not.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

doozie said:


> I'm just sayin there is no difference between a topless photo of either sex whether it gets a reaction, or not.


Well.......ok then, but I'm not sending *you* to the hardware store for plumbing parts, lol.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Let’s see both male and female breast can be stimulated during sex can be stimulating during sex have nipples and can lactate ,I am afraid I can’t see a big difference .
I know which ones I like best but I just think that’s just a matter of personal preference, you know sexual discrimination .


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

siberian said:


> I as well, and have seen it over and over. Usually up to superintendents discretion and /or board


Nope, should be dealt with during contract negotiations (as with any other language in the contract). If you have that in your contract, you need a better negotiating team. That sort of nonsense would never get past our team.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

altair said:


> To me, a shirtless man and a shirtless woman aren't the same. Society has made breasts forbidden and sexual so men can do yard work, walk on the side of the road, and drive a car shirtless but if a woman did there would be an uproar in some fashion.


The only difference I see is the woman wouldnt have to walk as far before being offered a ride.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

So many of you are saying that a pic of a females breast is sexual..............

FEELING EXITED YET?????


----------



## altair (Jul 23, 2011)

D-BOONE said:


> So many of you are saying that a pic of a females breast is sexual..............
> 
> FEELING EXITED YET?????


LOL, no. They don't rev my engines any.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

D-BOONE said:


> So many of you are saying that a pic of a females breast is sexual..............
> 
> FEELING EXITED YET?????


Now thats a good looking teat.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

D-BOONE said:


> So many of you are saying that a pic of a females breast is sexual..............
> 
> FEELING EXITED YET?????


 Yes but not sexually 
Lol there is a entire sub forum here devoted to cow porn .....


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

All I can think of when I see that pic is..please someone milk that poor thing.


----------

