Walker10
Veteran Member
Based on the evidence set forth in Post No. 7 above, I find this defendant Not Guilty! Case dismissed with prejudice.
You, you, you dirty old man you.
USA High School Cheerleader Coach Fired After Posing Nude For Playboy
- Thread starter Fisher
- Start date
You, you, you dirty old man you.
Oilpatch Hand
3-Bomb General, TB2K Army
Annkor26
Inactive
When the Today show was running a blurb about the story this morning before they showed it, I would swear they said the photos were taken before she got the job. They were not in the magazine; they were on the Playboy website and she was voted "Cybergirl of the Week."
The parents and the little princess were on the Today show this morning and said they found out about the photos from their daughter and she found out from rumors at school. The parents didn't seem to have a beef with the morality of it all so much as they were upset that little princess was kicked off the team for rules violations and wanted the coach held to the same too high standards that little princess was held to. Frankly, I found the whole family to be pretty snotty, but especially little princess!
The parents and the little princess were on the Today show this morning and said they found out about the photos from their daughter and she found out from rumors at school. The parents didn't seem to have a beef with the morality of it all so much as they were upset that little princess was kicked off the team for rules violations and wanted the coach held to the same too high standards that little princess was held to. Frankly, I found the whole family to be pretty snotty, but especially little princess!
What is more likely is that Playboy et al determined that her value as a pictorial was much higher with THIS sort of publicity ("High School soccer coach... blah blah blah"), thereby providing the source of the information exposed, so to speak.
She gains a heck of a lot more with this revelation than without it.
As for the school, they are simply enforcing the hiring agreement, without bias.
To do otherwise would be really unwise on their part, if they ever wanted to enforce it for any reason in the future.
.
That only depends on whether she was posing during, after, before hiring. If she posed during and before hiring. They dismissed her posing by hiring her and do not have a leg to stand on. IF however she was posing after the hiring only then yes they can and by allrights legally fire her
Fisher
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Thanks Annkor26.
Here is the Today Show interview from this morning.
Video 5:33
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/30306013#30306013
Mary, the mother of Jesus, in a message to the prayer group in Pana, Illinois. Saturday April 18, 2009.
MY CHILDREN, YOU SEE THE WORLD IN SUCH UPHEAVAL AND THE SIN COVERING EVERYTHING. YOU SEE THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE WITHIN YOUR CHILDREN AND YOU PONDER THEIR DESTINY. BE AFRAID FOR THOSE WHO REFUSE GOD AND ARE THE CAUSE OF SUCH HORRENDOUS ACTIONS AGAINST THESE LITTLE ONES, SO LOVED BY GOD. THEIR FATE CANNOT BE MENTIONED, THEIR SIN SHALL BRING DOWN UPON THEM THE WRATH OF GOD AS NEVER SEEN BEFORE. ONLY A SINCERE CONTRITE HEART CAN HELP THEM, THOSE SOULS THAT HAVE CAUSED SIN TO ENTER THE YOUNGEST HEARTS.
The entire message is at the thread Maybe, one time Dennis.
MY CHILDREN, YOU SEE THE WORLD IN SUCH UPHEAVAL AND THE SIN COVERING EVERYTHING. YOU SEE THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE WITHIN YOUR CHILDREN AND YOU PONDER THEIR DESTINY. BE AFRAID FOR THOSE WHO REFUSE GOD AND ARE THE CAUSE OF SUCH HORRENDOUS ACTIONS AGAINST THESE LITTLE ONES, SO LOVED BY GOD. THEIR FATE CANNOT BE MENTIONED, THEIR SIN SHALL BRING DOWN UPON THEM THE WRATH OF GOD AS NEVER SEEN BEFORE. ONLY A SINCERE CONTRITE HEART CAN HELP THEM, THOSE SOULS THAT HAVE CAUSED SIN TO ENTER THE YOUNGEST HEARTS.
The entire message is at the thread Maybe, one time Dennis.
Donald Shimoda
In Absentia
Howdy, Folks!
I had thought of this when I originally posted, but figured someone would dig up the info and that would be that.
Obviously, it's not been dug up, and it's a point of discussion, so let's look at it.
The question has been posed,
"WHEN were the pictures taken? Before she was hired for the job, or after?"
Okay - let's look at this from simply a purely legal standpoint.
1. IF the school has some sort of "morality" clause in their contracts that prohibits folks from say, having nude pictures published...
1. IF Carlie Christine was aware of this clause, signed off on it, and after signing it THEN posed for Playboy and had these pictures taken...
3. IF this is taking place in a right to work state...
THEN...
Carlie Christine doesn't have any recourse. She's fired, too bad.
Now, that all said...
Playboy LOVES to go to college campuses and photograph young ladies. They also solicit photos from young women, in return for financial compensation. Frequently, they will simply sit on the pictures and use them at a later date(or not at all - they have a huge backlog of stuff to call upon). If they're lucky, someone they photographed will become famous and they can then run a spread of some now famous model or actress and not have to pay big bucks for it, as they already bought and paid for the pictures. This sells many, many issues, and therefore it behooves them to spend a relative pittance in acquiring photos from young unknowns as a potential investment.
It is VERY likely these pictures were taken before this woman entered into the school as a coach.
It is also VERY LIKELY they found out she is a coach/teacher, and they decided to run these photos.
It is also VERY LIKELY they were fully aware of how much attention this would generate, and thus boost their internet advertising sales / magazine sales.
It is also VERY LIKELY they were fully aware of how this would negatively affect this young woman, and they don't care - she got PAID; not their problem.
I still feel the issue of when the pictures were taken is MOOT.
The real issue here is how these young ladies are being taught the passive aggressive behavior of running to their parents and the pseudo-parent in the form of the school(or the Nanny State for them later on in life) to inflict damage on the person that rained on their parade.
Coach won't let me be on the cheerleading squad? Fine. I'll get her FIRED. That's fair.
Is it?
Isn't this sort of "punishment" WAY out of proportion?
Is this how we want to bring up the generation of folks that will be looking after us in the future?
I had thought of this when I originally posted, but figured someone would dig up the info and that would be that.
Obviously, it's not been dug up, and it's a point of discussion, so let's look at it.
The question has been posed,
"WHEN were the pictures taken? Before she was hired for the job, or after?"
Okay - let's look at this from simply a purely legal standpoint.
1. IF the school has some sort of "morality" clause in their contracts that prohibits folks from say, having nude pictures published...
1. IF Carlie Christine was aware of this clause, signed off on it, and after signing it THEN posed for Playboy and had these pictures taken...
3. IF this is taking place in a right to work state...
THEN...
Carlie Christine doesn't have any recourse. She's fired, too bad.
Now, that all said...
Playboy LOVES to go to college campuses and photograph young ladies. They also solicit photos from young women, in return for financial compensation. Frequently, they will simply sit on the pictures and use them at a later date(or not at all - they have a huge backlog of stuff to call upon). If they're lucky, someone they photographed will become famous and they can then run a spread of some now famous model or actress and not have to pay big bucks for it, as they already bought and paid for the pictures. This sells many, many issues, and therefore it behooves them to spend a relative pittance in acquiring photos from young unknowns as a potential investment.
It is VERY likely these pictures were taken before this woman entered into the school as a coach.
It is also VERY LIKELY they found out she is a coach/teacher, and they decided to run these photos.
It is also VERY LIKELY they were fully aware of how much attention this would generate, and thus boost their internet advertising sales / magazine sales.
It is also VERY LIKELY they were fully aware of how this would negatively affect this young woman, and they don't care - she got PAID; not their problem.
I still feel the issue of when the pictures were taken is MOOT.
The real issue here is how these young ladies are being taught the passive aggressive behavior of running to their parents and the pseudo-parent in the form of the school(or the Nanny State for them later on in life) to inflict damage on the person that rained on their parade.
Coach won't let me be on the cheerleading squad? Fine. I'll get her FIRED. That's fair.
Is it?
Isn't this sort of "punishment" WAY out of proportion?
Is this how we want to bring up the generation of folks that will be looking after us in the future?
Its amazing how fast morals have fallen.
I'll be clearer.
People who pose nude are sluts/degenerates/or whatever degraded term for an immoral person you want to use.
They shouldn't be in any position of authority over children.
Rome ......... make way for another formerly great nation.
I'll be clearer.
People who pose nude are sluts/degenerates/or whatever degraded term for an immoral person you want to use.
They shouldn't be in any position of authority over children.
Rome ......... make way for another formerly great nation.
Aardaerimus
Anunnaku
Bitching about boobies is perhaps the least productive thing that religionists can do. The failure of society begins in the home. Exposure to the world is merely a catalyst that exacerbates the growth of whatever seed was planted in the child to begin with.
That is where the true loss of innocence begins. Nakedness, was never reprehensible until someone told us it was... The same occurs today. Religionists cry and moan about it so much that they actually cause their children to become curious about what it is they're missing.
Go to some african boob tribe in B.F. Egypt and they're flopping all over the place unshamed and unsexualized... Why? Because nobody told them they were naked. We became so fearful of nudity that we hid it in shame and buried it in the fires of hell, and just like the taboo of drugs, it's popularity and demand exploded, because people are inherently rebellious and curious.
Your shame and guilt is a gift of Satan from the tree of knowledge, so why then do we call it "godly"? Even He said, "Who told you that you were naked?!"
Donald Shimoda
In Absentia
Whoa...
Mom, dad, and student are interviewed here; Dad says something along the lines of,
"Well, the girls(cheerleaders) are held to extremely high standards and they aren't allowed to post racy pictures on MySpace..."
Uh...no one ever mentioned in this news clip that the high school cheerleaders are CHILDREN, and the coach is an ADULT.
Of COURSE the students are going to be "held" to a so-called "high standard" it's called, "protecting children from sexual exploitation."
armadillogray
Inactive
Listened to the video----
1. She had the pictures taken prior to being a coach
2. She definitely was not a teacher
My prior post remains and I still believe my previous ideas. It was "sour grapes".....
1. She had the pictures taken prior to being a coach
2. She definitely was not a teacher
My prior post remains and I still believe my previous ideas. It was "sour grapes".....
Donald Shimoda
In Absentia
Howdy, Folks!
armadillogray,
I didn't catch that, and I was listening specifically for it.
Where in the video does it say that?
Thanks in advance.
Josie
Has No Life - Lives on TB
I agree with most of what you said, Don. However, I do think that when the pictures were taken is important. Many young people will do a lot of things to raise money for college, etc. I would have to view the contract that both the school district and the coach agreed to before making a judgement. There may not be a morality clause in there as so many assume is. And a very simple google search, or a search of My Space or Facebook can lead to the incriminating information.
Sour grapes.
Go to some african boob tribe in B.F. Egypt and they're flopping all over the place unshamed and unsexualized... Why? Because nobody told them they were naked. We became so fearful of nudity that we hid it in shame and buried it in the fires of hell, and just like the taboo of drugs, it's popularity and demand exploded, because people are inherently rebellious and curious.
That may well be true, and I could even agree with it. But we're not an African tribe anymore. Nudity and sexuality is an extremely manipulated and exploited proposition. Saying we "shouldn't" be ashamed or manipulated won't change the fact that we are.
That may well be true, and I could even agree with it. But we're not an African tribe anymore. Nudity and sexuality is an extremely manipulated and exploited proposition. Saying we "shouldn't" be ashamed or manipulated won't change the fact that we are.
Aardaerimus,
I don't know what you mean by using the term "religionist?" God gave all of us a conscience but in this day and age especially, conscience is dulled by mortal sin. Pornography is a grave sin (mortal).
We are in the end of times, there is no "innocence" in the children. As a parent, I could cry.
In the Era of Peace...the new time of God and not too far off, there won't be pornography, television or the internet.