Conduct Unbecoming

The Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse has been fired after news surfaced that he had shot pornographic videos with his wife. The man argued that this was done on his own time and in the privacy of his home, claiming a First Amendment violation. Which side has the moral high ground? Tune into this thrill-a-minute rollercoaster of excitement to find out!

Listen here on Soundcloud:

4.9 19 votes
Article Rating
Latest Episode
Get in the Fight!
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George Walther
January 4, 2024 2:57 PM

I have begun to wonder about the merits and limits of “free speech” vs. “free expression”. I am not confident that the Founders would have endorsed much that is accepted as free “expression” under the rights of the 1st Amendment, vs. thinking they were protecting efforts at written and spoken persuasion made for political purposes. But not flag burning, certain forms of “art”, etc. Even under my preferences to potentially restrict some forms of “expression” that are currently not restricted in any meaningful way, I have to admit there is a slippery line. E.g., a billboard announcing there will be… Read more »

Daniel Cutshall
January 4, 2024 8:21 AM

Steve’s voice was very weak and only coming in on my left channel earphone. With my bad hearing, that’s a significant problem. Please bring Steve back to normal audio so I don’t miss his wit & wisdom!

Kevin Gildner
January 3, 2024 2:41 PM

condolences to Stephen and his family, so very sad.

in regards to the porn chancellor….my only question is, was there a “moral terpitude” clause in his contract? I have been on an NFP BOD for over 30 years and everyone always chucles about that clause….well that’s what it’s there for!

Donald Lehoux
January 3, 2024 9:49 AM

your arguments are as valid as the bakeries that were violated by the judges and lawyers and the bakeries should NOT have even seen the inside of a courtroom

David Maxwell
January 3, 2024 6:46 AM

NO sound from Steve Green

Reply to  David Maxwell
January 3, 2024 8:05 AM

Steve’s audio is all on the left channel. If you’re hearing the audio from this video on a phone or tablet try using stereo headphones and you can hear him. It’s a goof but it’s not an insurmountable problem, admittedly it would be better to have gotten the mixing right. I and others have commented on this previously on this page if you want to see what has already been said about it.

Last edited 2 months ago by ACTS (TM)
January 3, 2024 5:38 AM

As Scott (I believe) alluded to, It’s ALMOST ironic that the rotting corpse of academia’s “reputation” is fairly bullett proof from many brands of perversion, including this one.

Ron Swansons Alter Ego
January 3, 2024 5:05 AM

Since this is new, reposting something from yesterday.
Not sure how many BW members read VodkaPundit at PJ Media.
Please see this from Stephen Green.
Just awful and prayers for his family.

Julaire Andelin
Reply to  Ron Swansons Alter Ego
January 3, 2024 7:55 AM

Thanks for sharing. I missed it yesterday.

Condolences, Steve. I never know what to say in these situations, so some inadequate platitudes of sympathy are all I can come up with.

Michael Teutsch
Reply to  Ron Swansons Alter Ego
January 3, 2024 1:46 PM

So sorry Steve and family.

Paul Skidmore
Reply to  Ron Swansons Alter Ego
January 4, 2024 5:23 AM

Thanks for the link, Ron. I missed it. My family also was rocked by the loss of a nephew on Christmas eve to a senseless gun murder because alcohol was not kept away from guns. To make matters worse, the killer and the deceased were both in different branches of law enforcement. Guns and alcohol should never be in the same party.

Ron Swansons Alter Ego
January 3, 2024 5:03 AM

2 quick points:
When I saw this story I knew it would be covered, I just thought Steve would be hosting it.
I miss Scrappleface (it was my first time hearing of Scott Ott) but he is right, Satire has becoming very difficult (good satire is always difficult) in a world where anything goes.
The Babylon Bee is to be highly commended in this respect.

Keith Jackson
January 3, 2024 4:37 AM

As a society becomes comfortable, with multiple generations never having faced any existential threat to survival, it deteriorates into a clown show. I listened to a piece on Daily Wire entitled “End of the World” and plucked this opinion out. It ties in well with Whittle’s “Things to come”, but wasn’t as listenable or cogent. Many communities of mankind end the cycle of a year pretending there is an “upside down” world, with the leader giving up their throne for a couple days to a lowly subject and men dressing up as women, with traditional, societal unity-reinforcing morality suspended. But… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Keith Jackson
David Pimentel
Reply to  Keith Jackson
January 3, 2024 6:44 AM

If I were a betting man, I’d take the odds on the latter outcome.

Ken Miller
January 3, 2024 3:33 AM

It’s not that it’s always complicated when sex is involved; it’s that it’s always complicated when federal funding is involved.

Bill is right that isn’t difficult… however, not for the reasons he believes. The SCotUS has declared that pornography is speech. I disagree, but that’s the world we live in. Thus, he’s being fired specifically for speech (sic). The question is, does the university have a right to do so? As it is an organ of the state, the answer is no.

Ron Swansons Alter Ego
Reply to  Ken Miller
January 3, 2024 5:01 AM

However, there is a line when you are a representative of another organization. His contract with the University would need to be reviewed, but almost surely there is a clause for “conduct unbecoming” or some such.
Yes, he is free to upload whatever legal activities that he’d like, but they University doesn’t have to abide by it once it becomes public domain and he linked it to his position by making it public.

Reply to  Ken Miller
January 3, 2024 5:33 AM

I disagree with you and agree with Bill’s position. This guy’s freedom of speech expressed via pornography does not trump the University’s right to freedom of speech in saying “We do not want to be associated with this kind of thing and this kind of person”. When it comes to the SCOTUS and this sort of thing … The Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, assembly, and petition logically extends to include a “freedom of association.” Generally, this means we have the freedom to associate with others who have similar political, religious, or… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by ACTS (TM)
Ken Miller
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 22, 2024 4:35 PM

Sorry, but I can’t agree. First, “freedom of association” has never applied to the government. Because of its unique position, government cannot discriminate based on any freedoms the rest of us enjoy. It has no rights. In fact, a few recent cases have been decided in favor of conservatives on that ground – including a coach who was fired for praying before a game. That is a protection we should not be so quick to surrender. As far as not being immune from the consequences of what you say – so long as what you say isn’t illegal, that does… Read more »

David Pimentel
Reply to  Ken Miller
January 3, 2024 6:40 AM

“As it is an organ of the state, …”

OMG! You had to go there in the comments of a porn discussion given our current culture of perversion and its collection of federally-appointed tranny clowns. 😀

Last edited 2 months ago by David Pimentel
Reply to  David Pimentel
January 3, 2024 8:01 AM

OMG! That’s what stood out to you in a discussion about Constitutional issues? Get your mind out of the gutter Dave. That’s not a flattering place to be.

David Pimentel
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 3, 2024 12:39 PM

Your humorless replies are telling of a sad individual who refuses to recognize the funny things in life. Don’t bother with a reply, cuz anything else you add to this is irrelevant.

Reply to  David Pimentel
January 3, 2024 1:32 PM

LOL, toilet humor is for kids. Talk about “humorless replies” you do the very thing you accuse me of … Try not to get your knickers in a knot when someone is just giving you a jovial ribbing.

You pronouncing something irrelevant doesn’t make it so either. Seems you think a bit too highly of yourself if you believe you can dictate whether someone replies to you or not. I’m pretty sure you’re not in charge around here, correct me if I’m wrong about that.

Last edited 2 months ago by ACTS (TM)