Que. school worker outed as porn star, suspended

[211RadOp]

And further to this story, the kid is now suspended, as is his mother who also worked for the board.  But I guess she is not a porn star also.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/03/26/17764711.html?cid=cnewsticker

Boy who outed porn star threatened with charges
By Kathleen Frenette, QMI Agency

LEVIS, Que. - The 14-year-old boy who outed a clerical worker at his school who was moonlighting as a porn star has been suspended and claims his school administration threatened to press criminal charges against him.

QMI Agency has also learned that the boy's mother, who teaches at another school, has been suspended with pay for two days.

The 14-year-old learned the clerical worker's secret when he saw one of her movies. He asked her for an autograph and she refused. The boy then created a Facebook page under her name and uploaded a racy profile picture of the woman in her underwear.

The boy was suspended on Thursday.

"They suspended me for an undetermined period and threatened to press criminal charges against me if I don't take down (the) Facebook page within five days," he said.

But the boy said that he can't close the page because he created it under another name and can no longer access the administration section. 
 
The spokesperson for the boy's school board said that they never threatened any legal action.

"Yes, he was suspended and we will have a meeting with him and his father on Monday," said Louise Boisvert. "But the school never threatened expulsion or to press charges against him."

However a memo, signed by the assistant director of the third grade, sent to the boy Thursday demands he find a solution to the problem or risk "being transferred to another school in the school board."

"This is an attack on my reputation; it's downright identity theft and I never game my consent to have this Facebook page created on my behalf," said the clerical worker who goes by the stage name Samantha Ardente.

The clerical worker was suspended immediately after she was outed, according to QMI Agency's source.

QMI was also told that the woman could be transferred to the school board's head office, but the teacher's union couldn't confirm that.

 

[Occam]

This fella sums up my feelings on the subject quite nicely.



Lorne Gunter: Don’t fire porn-star school secretary

Original link

Lorne Gunter  Mar 25, 2011 – 3:53 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 25, 2011 3:54 PM ET

It would be easy to advocate firing the suburban Quebec City high-school secretary who moonlights as porn actress Samantha Ardente. If nothing else, now that her secret is out, her dismissal would prevent 300 16- and 17-year-old boys from clogging up the hallway outside the office every morning pressing their noses to the glass for a glimpse of Mademoiselle Hottie.

On the other hand, since news broke of the anonymous secretary’s after-hours exploits, I bet attendance is way up and hooky-playing is way down.

But what did she do that is a fireable offence? She engaged in a legal (though controversial) activity on her own time, involving no students and was not in a position of trust with responsibility for students. She may not be the kind of role model parents would wish their kids’ schools had, but if being a bad role model were enough to get you canned, most pro sports leagues would consist of two second-rate teams populated by monks and nerds.

Were she a teacher, my opinion might be different, especially if she was extolling the virtues of the porn lifestyle in her lessons. But by all accounts her work — her daytime work — did not bring her into contact with students. And even if it did, even if students needed to approach Ms. Ardente routinely to report absences and lost books, to pick up registration forms and book appointments with guidance counsellors, hers would not be the kind of trust position in which the her personal life might be assumed to have an impact on her ability to discharge her public duty to students.

This is kind of like finding out that your accountant, Dave, likes to wear wigs, a sequined evening gown and strappy heels and sing show tunes after hours in a drag bar under the name Doreen. It’s a little unsettling, but, hey, can Doreen still find ways to defer tax payments for extra-national dividends received in previous tax years?

I can recall three teachers in Canada who have been fired for holding white supremacist views: Jim Keegstra of Alberta, Paul Fromm of Ontario and Malcolm Ross of New Brunswick. Keegstra’s firing was (or at least should have been) a slam dunk — he taught anti-Semitism in his classroom. He told students as part of their Social Studies lessons that Jews seek to demolish the Christian religion, cause depressions, wars and revolutions just so they can make money. They also staged the Holocaust “to gain sympathy.”

Fromm and Ross were tougher cases. Neither used his classroom as a pulpit: Fromm was a frequent speaker at white supremacist rallies and ran an anti-Semitic website on his own time. Meanwhile, Ross wrote extensively on what he saw as the treachery of Jews and fallacy of the Holocaust, but always away from school.

In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that Ross’s firing for his outside activities was indeed a curtailment of his right to free expression, but a curtailment that was “reasonable and justifiable” because it was possible to hold teachers to a higher standard. The justices also ruled, though, that his school district was wrong to remove him from the non-teaching job they had transferred him to because, even though he continued his hateful writings in his new position, a) he never did his writing during school board working hours and b) after being removed from the classroom, Ross was no longer in a trust position with students.

I have a 15-year-old son who next fall will enter high school. Would I want him to attend a school at which one of the secretaries was a porn actress after the dismissal bell had sounded? Sure. I wouldn’t go looking for such a school, but so long as the telegenic clerical worker kept her work and private lives separate, I would send our son to her school and not worry once about it.

 

[OldSolduer]

this so called "women" should rightfully be suspended without pay she has commited an act of undecency and should not be near kids who can go to any site on-line that offers scantily clad women fornicating for the camera while single or married men watch with lustful eyes especially those who are still in their teens or younger. 

Who are you?

 

[GAP]

this so called "women" should rightfully be suspended without pay she has commited an act of undecency and should not be near kids who can go to any site on-line that offers scantily clad women fornicating for the camera while single or married men watch with lustful eyes especially those who are still in their teens or younger. 

Whole societies have rallied around stuff like that, in fact, I do believe we have a whole era named after it.....Victorian ring any bells.....

 

[vonGarvin]

Whole societies have rallied around stuff like that, in fact, I do believe we have a whole era named after it.....Victorian ring any bells.....

Well, not entirely true, though the Victorian era is known, IMHO, unfairly for being repressive.  "Conservative" perhaps, but more of a "there's a time and place for everything" type of society, and "in public is not the place" for certain things.

Anyway, this woman broke no laws, and unless her contract stated something to the effect of "thou shalt not have sex and put it on the internet", then I am quite confident that she broke no agreement with her employer.  Why this is even a news item is beyond me.


(Edited to fix grammar and spelling errors)

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Who are you?

Some kid from Oshawa who spelled "brainiac" wrong in his email address so I wouldn't worry about him/her folks,.......just carry on.

 

[jwtg]

"This is an attack on my reputation; it's downright identity theft and I never game my consent to have this Facebook page created on my behalf," said the clerical worker who goes by the stage name Samantha Ardente.

You did porn in the era of social media, and you're upset that it somehow got to Facebook?  Doing porn while working at an institution populated by high-school age boys probably wasn't the best idea, either.

 

[vonGarvin]

You did porn in the era of social media, and you're upset that it somehow got to Facebook?  Doing porn while working at an institution populated by high-school age boys probably wasn't the best idea, either.

It may have not been the best idea; however, this comes down to freedom, specifically, sexual freedom.  Homosexuals have gone a long way to champion their freedom, but it seems that society forgot that heterosexuals like to have sex too. 

But a group name in her name, using her likeness, etc, when you don't have persmission to do so, is still verboten.

 

[jwtg]

But a group name in her name, using her likeness, etc, when you don't have persmission to do so, is still verboten.

If the photos/material being used for the facebook profile are from her movies/photos/work of any kind, and are therefore owned by her producers, then I wonder if she has any right to that material at all?  Maybe it's her producers who have legal grounds here, and not her.  They might like the free advertising!

In all seriousness, I'm not condoning the creation of a facebook page without her consent- I'm just saying she probably should have realized the risks before she had sex on camera.

Also, there are many, many, many cases of former porn-stars who contact their old bosses begging and pleading to have their material removed from the internet for all kinds of reasons.  I heard an interview with an ex porn-producer who got out of the industry because of the damage it did to the lives of the performers.  Years later, he still gets letters begging him to remove photos/videos.  People who have moved on from porn to get married, join the military (true example), pursue professional careers or do all sorts of things are finding their videos and photos surfacing in a way that damages their relationship and reputations.  One woman was getting married and her fiancee found her porn on the internet- talk about an awkward conversation.  (Admittedly, there might have been deeper issues in the relationship if they were naive about each others' pasts, but that's niether here not there..)

Anyhow, I hope everything works out for the best for her, but I would be curious to know if she has any legal grounds to demand that the facebook page be taken down, or do those rights belong to her producers?  Generally porn producers make the performers sign away all their rights to any of the material, so if the producers went ahead and made a facebook page, she probably wouldn't be able to do anything about it....

EDIT to add: It is virtually impossible for producers to remove a porn stars material for obvious reasons, even if they wanted to.  Once it's on the NET, it's out of your control....

 

[ballz]

Anyhow, I hope everything works out for the best for her, but I would be curious to know if she has any legal grounds to demand that the facebook page be taken down, or do those rights belong to her producers?  Generally porn producers make the performers sign away all their rights to any of the material, so if the producers went ahead and made a facebook page, she probably wouldn't be able to do anything about it....

Depends on the wording of the contracts. Most likely, you are correct that pictures of her / videos of her created by the producers would be deemed "property" to which they held the rights (distributing, copyright, etc). The wording could (or could for certain things within the contract) be more along the lines of "grant XYZ permission to sell/distribute/yada yada yada" in which case, since the 14 yr old is not XYZ, she would have a case against him as she didn't grant permission to do squat.

But, it sounds like (since she's saying "identity theft" and "on her behalf") these pictures were used to create a fake profile, pretending to be her, or a "fan page" that represents her. This is identity theft and she would have a case.

 

[The Bread Guy]

But a group name in her name, using her likeness, etc, when you don't have persmission to do so, is still verboten.

But, it sounds like (since she's saying "identity theft" and "on her behalf") these pictures were used to create a fake profile, pretending to be her, or a "fan page" that represents her. This is identity theft and she would have a case.

And if the school board is reportedly threatening charges, does that maybe mean this was done using school board systems?  Don't know, but just askin'....

 

[I_Drive_Planes]

But a group name in her name, using her likeness, etc, when you don't have permission to do so, is still verboten.

I don't really see this being a problem, there are thousands of unsanctioned facebook groups and fan pages dedicated to various celebrities.  If it was a fake facebook account in her name it may be different, but it's my understanding that it was a group (which I can't seem to find on there so it must have been taken down).


Personally I see absolutely no problem with what she does as a side job (as long as she does it well!  >).  She's done nothing illegal and I'm sure that some of the people calling for her dismissal will go home after she's left jobless and watch some of her work, or work like hers.  Most people have sex from time to time, she happens to have sex on camera.  I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[my72jeep]

[
.

QMI Agency has also learned that the boy's mother, who teaches at another school, has been suspended with pay for two days.

.
[/quote]
What I would like to know now is why was the Mother suspended?

 

[ballz]

And if the school board is reportedly threatening charges, does that maybe mean this was done using school board systems?  Don't know, but just askin'....

No (educated) idea to be honest... :-\ I just know a bit about the the business/corporate, contract-type legal side of it. Identity theft is criminal so here's my worthless 2 cents on that:

I don't see how the kid using school computers to create the facebook account instead of his own pc at home gives the school any grounds for any legal action, definitey not on the criminal side of it (perhaps in civil law, if his actions eventually cause the school financial hardship, they could file a claim for negligence), and that's if they could even prove he used their computers. There was also no indication of what these alleged threats were alluding that he would be charged with. Might be something completely unrelated to the identity theft stuff, if they are even true.

I kind of believe the board over the kid when it comes to them threatening legal action. Any serious threats of legal action probably would have come in an envelope in the mail from a lawyer...

They might have counselled him about the whole cause and effects of being careless, and said "you know, you COULD find yourself in legal trouble for these kinds of thing, identity theft and whatnot" and then the kid takes it as them threatening legal action. Who knows? 1000 possible guesses as to what happened behind closed doors, each has the same 1/1000 chance of being correct.

 

[armyvern]

I'm not sure... but it might be a Cadet Chief Warrant Officer?

I think this forum has a bit about cadets having to put their ranks with a C slash ... such as "C/CWO" --- just so there's no mistaking them.

 

[armyvern]

Well, not entirely true, though the Victorian era is known, IMHO, unfairly for being repressive.  "Conservative" perhaps, but more of a "there's a time and place for everything" type of society, and "in public is not the place" for certain things.

Ahhhhhh, you must be a man with man views; back when we women couldn't enter the smoking room in our own house (or smoke!!), couldn't speak if a man were speaking (because it wasn't the time or place), draped the house in black and couldn't leave it while in pro-longed periods of mourning, needed to have a chaperone if going on a date or if a male guest was in the home ... only a man could view that as conservative vice 'repressive'. 


:-*

 

[armyvern]

If the photos/material being used for the facebook profile are from her movies/photos/work of any kind, and are therefore owned by her producers, then I wonder if she has any right to that material at all?  Maybe it's her producers who have legal grounds here, and not her.  They might like the free advertising!
...

Except, in this case, the page is simply titled "Samantha Ardente" ... it's a page posing as hers personally;

It's not a "Samantha Ardente Fan Page", "Like Samantha Ardente", "Support Samantha Ardente", or "Fire Samantha Ardente", page etc.

That`s not on.

PS: I didn`t see anything from her stating she was upset it made it to crackbook, only that she was upset that it was someone posing as her - thieving her identity.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

If the photos/material being used for the facebook profile are from her movies/photos/work of any kind, and are therefore owned by her producers, then I wonder if she has any right to that material at all?  Maybe it's her producers who have legal grounds here, and not her.  They might like the free advertising!

My understanding is that Facebook doesn't allow any nudity on any of their pages. The other thing is that in Quebec it is against the law to post/publish/profit from someone's images without their permission to do so.

 

[brainiack-12@hotmail.ca]

Just because you think that I am wrong doesnt mean that i am. Yes to answer someones query i am an EX- cadet squadron warrant officer first class. though that was a good 20-30 yrs ago I am still allwoed to say what i said as stated here
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom
of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

 

[jwtg]

Just because you think that I am wrong doesnt mean that i am.

I think I speak for us all when I say 'likewise.'