She's got a myspace page, and you can also see some of the other photos of her still up on Flickr (I believe the topless ones have been removed). (Ooh, I just found a video too.)
Hoover is defending this as a first amendment issue. From her myspace page:
The school is saying that i was on a pornographic
website
deemed me ineffective
1. The website is artistic photogrphy and very good
at that.
2. I never told kids to "go see me" at the website.
3. The website is not mine and I have no control over
what the photographer posts, nor do i know what she
is going to post
4. The website is not pornographic.
5. I have been recognized by the board year after year (2 weeks before may 19 board recognized me again) for outstanding
achievments as an art teacher..YET I am supposedly ineffective.
This guy seems to think it's the teacher who turned her in we should be worried about.
I think this puts conservatives in a tough spot. On the one hand, you've got your moral issues to worry about: there's nudity, there are students, and there's homosexuality. On the other hand, it seems like this was an art teacher doing arty things, which should be perfectly protected by our constitution, and it appears none of her pictures are any worse than the ones shown to art students in high school anyway, or, for that matter, in any museum or public sculpture.
I think this is one more example of the backwards society we live in. Video games and movies can be as violent as they wish to be, but as soon as nudity or sexuality intrudes, they are censored. Shouldn't we be more interested in eliminating gratuitous felony activity from our public artwork than perfectly natural bodies?
No comments:
Post a Comment