NationStates Jolt Archive

Seven Paratroopers Charged With Having Sex for Money
Friday, February 24, 2006

STORIES
•Military Investigating 82nd Airborne Over Gay Porn Allegations
RALEIGH, N.C. — The Army has charged seven paratroopers from the celebrated 82nd Airborne Division with engaging in sex acts in videos shown on a gay pornography Web site.

Three of the soldiers face courts-martial on charges of sodomy, pandering and engaging in sex acts for money, according to a statement released by the military Friday.

Four other soldiers received what the military calls nonjudicial punishments.

The Army has recommended that all be discharged.

The charges do not mention the name of the site, but the division had previously been investigating allegations that soldiers appeared on a gay pornography Web site. A spokesman for the division said Friday's charges were a result of that investigation.

The military-themed Web site did not make any direct reference to the division or Fort Bragg, a sprawling post about 70 miles south of Raleigh.

"As far as we're concerned, it's isolated to the unit, and our investigation determined that these seven individuals were the only ones" involved, said 82nd Airborne spokesman Maj. Thomas Earnhardt.

(Story continues below)

As if the US Military needed this right now..
Seriously, what's wrong with these people?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186026,00.html

Cooooooooooooooool.

*goes off google-searching for hot paratrooper gay sex*

Well, they should have paid them more.

As if the US Military needed this right now..
Seriously, what's wrong with these people?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186026,00.html

They wanted to makes some money doing a sex video.

What's the big frickin' deal? Army wanted a cut?

They wanted to makes some money doing a sex video.

What's the big frickin' deal? Army wanted a cut?

Theyre mad cause they couldnt tax them.

They wanted to makes some money doing a sex video.

What's the big frickin' deal? Army wanted a cut?

Nah, the armed services think they still have Honour.

Y'know, the same delusion the Klingons were operating under in every single representation in Star Trek...

Nah, the armed services think they still have Honour.

Y'know, the same delusion the Klingons were operating under in every single representation in Star Trek...

Ah, because it's far more honorable to spray napalm on people than to boink in front of a camera. :p

Ah, because it's far more honorable to spray napalm on people than to boink in front of a camera. :p
Well, according to most mainstream media, violence is perfectly acceptable.

Nudity, or even worse, "boinking" clearly is not.

Ah, because it's far more honorable to spray napalm on people than to boink in front of a camera. :p

And its much more relaxing too. Especially if your listening to Wagner when your doing it. :rolleyes:

And its much more relaxing too. Especially if your listening to Wagner when your doing it. :rolleyes:

Then you're not doing it right. (Boinking. Not napalm-spraying) :p

And its much more relaxing too. Especially if your listening to Wagner when your doing it. :rolleyes:
I disagree. I find boinking to be very soothing to the nerves.

As if the US Military needed this right now..
Seriously, what's wrong with these people?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186026,00.html

The 1/508 was actually a part of the 173rd abn stationed in Italy. They were very recently recalled and installed into the 82nd as a component of the new 4th Brigade Combat Team under the Army's modular reorganization plan. They will be most likely relegated to the rear guard for the next 10 years or so, until they can be completly overhauled into an effective memeber of the divison. When the 1/508th was dropped from the CAR in 1987, the minimum standards set by the division no longer applied to that paticular unit, which has apparently gone it's own direction in defining discipline and off duty behaivor.
While it appears on the surface to be something of a digression reflective of the division as a whole, nothing can be further from the truth. It is the 82nd that is responsible for taking action in correcting the situation, and bringing this unit up to division standards. There will be many more unhappy seperations to come over the next few years from the top down. I'd really, really hate to be a member of that batallion right now.

I'd really, really hate to be a member of that batallion right now.
No shit. :rolleyes:

:p

Three of the soldiers face courts-martial on charges of sodomy, pandering and engaging in sex acts for money, according to a statement released by the military Friday.
What is pandering? Is that having sex with pandas?

And its much more relaxing too. Especially if your listening to Wagner when your doing it. :rolleyes:

and beating up civilians, don't forget beating up civilians - on camera

Heh. It's obvious they would have be caught/found out or whatever. I'm sure one of the higher-up people was searching for some hot gay sex videos and stumbled across his own men.

"Wait.. Shit thats [enter name]!"

Well, according to most mainstream media, violence is perfectly acceptable.

Nudity, or even worse, "boinking" clearly is not.
Indeed - that's America for you :rolleyes:
I also think that they have a much bigger problem with them being gay in the first place than with them playing in a porno.

The fact it was gay sex was probably the issue. If they were doing female porn stars, it migh thave been treated differently. Heck, a new career for them - GAY PORN movies?

As if the US Military needed this right now..
Seriously, what's wrong with these people?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186026,00.htmlI dunno, the military could use an image overhaul...

They will be most likely relegated to the rear guard for the next 10 years or so, <Giggles>

No matter. Eastern European gay military porn is much better.

From the article

The registered owner of the Web site's domain name lists an address in Fayetteville, the city that adjoins Fort Bragg. A phone number listed for the registered owner was not in service Friday, and e-mails to the owner have been regularly returned as undeliverable.

:p Why am I not surprised :p

The fact it was gay sex was probably the issue. If they were doing female porn stars, it migh thave been treated differently. Heck, a new career for them - GAY PORN movies?

No actually, the gayness is one thing, but the military also has a standing rule against PDA (Public Displays of Affection) your not even supposed to kiss your wife while in uniform. Sodomy in any form is also illegal under the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice), thats right even a heterosexual BJ.

I find it amazing that the UCMJ isn't reveiwed and overseen by civilian lawyers.

No actually, the gayness is one thing, but the military also has a standing rule against PDA (Public Displays of Affection) your not even supposed to kiss your wife while in uniform. Sodomy in any form is also illegal under the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice), thats right even a heterosexual BJ.

I find it amazing that the UCMJ isn't reveiwed and overseen by civilian lawyers.

If it was hetero, it would have been hushed up since it involved gay sex - the US military is probably making a statement by making it public. These bad soldiers are in trouble now.

The pay must be really bad if you have do gay porn to get extra money.

The pay must be really bad if you have do gay porn to get extra money.

Don't you dare knock gay porn and those marvelous people who are in it.

They wanted to makes some money doing a sex video.

What's the big frickin' deal? Army wanted a cut?
IMHO, any soldier who makes a sex-vid ( whether gay or not ) brings disgrace on the uniform. :mad:

The pay must be really bad if you have do gay porn to get extra money.
It isn't, but that doesn't stop quite a number of military personnel from trying to make a bit of extra money.

Don't you dare knock gay porn and those marvelous people who are in it.

Porn industry pays much better than the US military then? :D

IMHO, any soldier who makes a sex-vid ( whether gay or not ) brings disgrace on the uniform. :mad:

As opposed to those at Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay...

No actually, the gayness is one thing, but the military also has a standing rule against PDA (Public Displays of Affection) your not even supposed to kiss your wife while in uniform. Sodomy in any form is also illegal under the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice), thats right even a heterosexual BJ.

I find it amazing that the UCMJ isn't reveiwed and overseen by civilian lawyers.
Civilian lawyers aren't qualified to pass judgment on the UCMJ.

There is no regulation of which I am aware that forbids kissing your wife, g/f, or whomever in public while in uniform. If there is, I have violated it repeatedly. :p

Porn industry pays much better than the US military then? :D

It probably does (I don't know what the pay is in the US military, but gay porn can indeed be quite lucrative), but with gay porn at least you're doing something honourable.

Cooooooooooooooool.

*goes off google-searching for hot paratrooper gay sex*


Yeah, indeed very cooooooooooooooooool... :p.

*let them enjoy themselves, starts j/o*

Porn industry pays much better than the US military then? :D

The fastfood industry pays better when your at low ranks.

The fastfood industry pays better when your at low ranks.

Explains at lot. You don't have people firing RPGs at you when work at Maccas either (unless it's the Baghdad Macdonald's store).

The fastfood industry pays better when your at low ranks.

True, but most people join the military because there are no jobs availiable where they live or join to get free travel around the world and shoot guns and blow shit up, one of the two.

It probably does (I don't know what the pay is in the US military, but gay porn can indeed be quite lucrative), but with gay porn at least you're doing something honourable.
So I spent all that time in a dishonorable profession? Fass! Tsk! :p

Current Pay Rates (http://www.army.com/money/payrates.html)

Keep in mind that housing, health care, and many other benefits are free. :)

The fastfood industry pays better when your at low ranks.
Bullshit.

http://www.army.com/money/payrates.html

So I spent all that time in a dishonorable profession? Fass! Tsk! :p

Yes, you did. Sorry.

Yes, you did. Sorry.
Obviously we fundamentally disagree on this one. :p

Obviously we fundamentally disagree on this one. :p

Of course, but as usual I am right and you are wrong.

Bullshit.

http://www.army.com/money/payrates.html

Depends what you include as fastfood. When I was in I had buddies that had to be Pizza boys to make ends meet. It was pretty sad. My little brother pulls in an average $80 tip a day working at Dennys. Speaking of bullshit.... I wonder what rank gets paid the same as a profesional shit shoveler (if any).

Hmm, I'd need to be an E-7 for 8-10 years before earning what I do straight after graduation. That kinda sucks. Of course, there's no killing people in my line of work, so there's probably plenty who would be willing to take a pay cut for that.

Depends what you include as fastfood. When I was in I had buddies that had to be Pizza boys to make ends meet. It was pretty sad.
And this was when?

And this was when?

99-03

Hmm, I'd need to be an E-7 for 8-10 years before earning what I do straight after graduation. That kinda sucks. Of course, there's no killing people in my line of work, so there's probably plenty who would be willing to take a pay cut for that.
Very funny. :rolleyes:

Keep in mind that most of those who enter the military did not have the option of a college education. Once they get out they do, but not many have the wherewithall to pay for it before they join.

Also keep in mind the free housing, free healthcare and other benefits, including the GI Bill and free meals for those living in the barracks. Active duty personnel also get $400,000 of either free or very low cost life insurance. The list is long.

99-03
Then the only thing I can conclude is that they weren't managing their pay very well.

Then the only thing I can conclude is that they weren't managing their pay very well.

Perhaps. I didn't get a second job until my last year in (I don't spend much, I think the single most expensive thing besides my vehicle was a $200 watch, and thats the entire time in), but I knew many people who worked Pizza Hut, Payless shoes, even Amway.

Perhaps. I didn't get a second job until my last year in (I don't spend much, I think the single most expensive thing besides my vehicle was a $200 watch, and thats the entire time in), but I knew many people who worked Pizza Hut, Payless shoes, even Amway.
Were they married, or are you talking about dependents working?

Discharged? How about being beaten sensless? That's what the military should be able to do. If they think somebody is bring a smart-ass, ect. they can beat the crap outta them.

:rolleyes: :mp5:

Keep in mind that most of those who enter the military did not have the option of a college education. Once they get out they do, but not many have the wherewithall to pay for it before they join.

Also keep in mind the free housing, free healthcare and other benefits, including the GI Bill and free meals for those living in the barracks. Active duty personnel also get $400,000 of either free or very low cost life insurance. The list is long.
That sucks. Here in communist Europe, my university education was free, and my healthcare is free. There are also numerous benefits to be had when working for a multinational. The Army wouldn't be such a popular employer in the US if the government looked after its people's welfare properly.

That sucks. Here in communist Europe, my university education was free, and my healthcare is free. There are also numerous benefits to be had when working for a multinational. The Army wouldn't be such a popular employer in the US if the government looked after its people's welfare properly.
What works for Europe wouldn't necessarily work in America. Sometimes you need to remember the sheer size of this place, the incredibly diverse population, the remnants of the "self-sufficiency" ethic, etc.

What works for Europe wouldn't necessarily work in America. Sometimes you need to remember the sheer size of this place, the incredibly diverse population, the remnants of the "self-sufficiency" ethic, etc.

Yes, Europe is tiny and undiverse. It's not like its population is bigger than that of the US and it has these things called countries that speak different languages and all have different cultures...

Yes, Europe is tiny and undiverse. It's not like its population is bigger than that of the US and it has these things called countries that speak different languages and all have different cultures...
Pwnt. :D

Yes, Europe is tiny and undiverse. It's not like its population is bigger than that of the US and it has these things called countries that speak different languages and all have different cultures...
Europe doesn't have a Federal Government over all those "diverse cultures."

Europe doesn't have a Federal Government over all those "diverse cultures."

Sounds like a good idea.

Europe doesn't have a Federal Government over all those "diverse cultures."

Umm, you do know that that speaks against your point?

<Giggles>

GREAT CATCH! "Rear guard" -- BWAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! I can't believe I didn't see that one coming!

(Must have been using Stealth condoms)

What works for Europe wouldn't necessarily work in America. Sometimes you need to remember the sheer size of this place, the incredibly diverse population, the remnants of the "self-sufficiency" ethic, etc.

Unfortunatly, "self-sufficiency" has gone the way of the dodo here in the states, i.e. New Orleans, right now.

Unfortunatly, "self-sufficiency" has gone the way of the dodo here in the states, i.e. New Orleans, right now.

Yeah, how dare those people expect government assistance in a time of disastrous need?

Unfortunatly, "self-sufficiency" has gone the way of the dodo here in the states, i.e. New Orleans, right now.

Oh this should be amusing. Why not explain it in detail?

Yeah, how dare those people expect government assistance in a time of disastrous need?

Oh, I ment to say that why the heck isnt anybody cleaning up the place after 6 months???? We have given them BILLIONS of $$$$ and what are they doing?? Bitching on how the government isnt cleaning the mess.
How is it that anywhere else in the US, when a tornado wipes a town off the face of the Earth, or an earthquake demolishes a city, or when Hurricane Andrew hit Florida, the people band together and start to clean up as soon as they are able to? Remember WWII? Whole cities where obliterated and left in ruin, 10X worse than New Orleans. No government help came to their rescue, espeically not in Eastern Europe. The citizens banded together and started rebuilding themselves, with little to no money from the government, and look at it just a few years later. For peats sake, is everyone disabled in New Orleans? Dont tell me they cant get off their butts and start cleaning themselves, even if its just around their homes. If everyone could just pitch in and start doing some cleaning, they would be a lot better off, instead of waiting till someone else does it for them.

Bluzblekistan,

I live in Gulfport MS (USAF stationed here). The people ARE doing alot of cleaning. It's still pretty messed up.

Bluzblekistan,

I live in Gulfport MS (USAF stationed here). The people ARE doing alot of cleaning. It's still pretty messed up.

Don't hit him with facts; his head might explode. ;)

People that make sweeping generalizations usually won't change their tune......

Bluzblekistan,

I live in Gulfport MS (USAF stationed here). The people ARE doing alot of cleaning. It's still pretty messed up.

Well thats good to hear.
However, they were recently showing on the news new orleans and teh surrounding areas and showing how nothing is being done and everything is left they way it was since the hit. No offense to you or anyone, its just that I dont like seeing people that are still living there, in the middle of the filth, complaining how the government is not doing enough, and not even lifting a finger themselves. Its those people that tick me off. It is good to hear that you guys are cleaning up, and I wish I could do something to help you guys out. but I dont like people saying how no one is helping them when they arent helping themselves.

Don't hit him with facts; his head might explode. ;)

People that make sweeping generalizations usually won't change their tune......
Well, when thats the generalization they keep putting up on the news and special programs about the Katrina aftermath, well, then thats what happens. People who scream nothing is being done, and they themselves are not doing anything, well, thats the impression I get when I see what they show. sorry. I know in some areas they are cleaning up big time and its a monumental task, but well, thanks to the media, I was seeing the worst.

Oh, I ment to say that why the heck isnt anybody cleaning up the place after 6 months???? We have given them BILLIONS of $$$$ and what are they doing?? Bitching on how the government isnt cleaning the mess.
How is it that anywhere else in the US, when a tornado wipes a town off the face of the Earth, or an earthquake demolishes a city, or when Hurricane Andrew hit Florida, the people band together and start to clean up as soon as they are able to? Remember WWII? Whole cities where obliterated and left in ruin, 10X worse than New Orleans. No government help came to their rescue, espeically not in Eastern Europe. The citizens banded together and started rebuilding themselves, with little to no money from the government, and look at it just a few years later. For peats sake, is everyone disabled in New Orleans? Dont tell me they cant get off their butts and start cleaning themselves, even if its just around their homes. If everyone could just pitch in and start doing some cleaning, they would be a lot better off, instead of waiting till someone else does it for them.
Have you BEEN down there? Tulane is open again. full sections are repopulated. But do you honestly expect average citizens to rebuild the levees? Sorry, it ain't gonna happen. That requires trained professionals, and is to be handled by the government. Many areas hit by Andrew are still in ruins to this day. They will never be rebuilt. And yeah, let's talk about WWII. Cities were decimated, in both Europe and Asia. Last I heard, the US helped all nations impacted, particularly France, Germany, GB and Japan, to rebuild its cities. Oh, and can't forget that you can still see the scars in many cities.

Maybe it isn't just something as simple as "cleaning". It takes a bit of knowledge to build levees, houses, and towers. Particularly when any decent sized storm could come back and wipe it all away because of further levee failures.

daaaahahahaha

is this really that unexpected, coming from the US military? they've done just about everything else, why not gay sex on the INTARWEB?

Have you BEEN down there? Tulane is open again. full sections are repopulated. But do you honestly expect average citizens to rebuild the levees? Sorry, it ain't gonna happen. That requires trained professionals, and is to be handled by the government. Many areas hit by Andrew are still in ruins to this day. They will never be rebuilt. And yeah, let's talk about WWII. Cities were decimated, in both Europe and Asia. Last I heard, the US helped all nations impacted, particularly France, Germany, GB and Japan, to rebuild its cities. Oh, and can't forget that you can still see the scars in many cities.

Maybe it isn't just something as simple as "cleaning". It takes a bit of knowledge to build levees, houses, and towers. Particularly when any decent sized storm could come back and wipe it all away because of further levee failures.

Look, I know the average citizen cant rebuild a levee. Duh.
The US really didnt help Poland and the Eastern block nations. Neither did Russia. Hell, my family lived in a city in southern Poland that was 97% demolished during the war, moreso than any other city in Europe. Jaslo, Poland. My grandparents remember how no one was coming to help them rebuild the city. No big $$ from Russia, or the US, or france, or England nothing. The people just came from around Poland (scrounged whatever they could to assist in rebuilding) and got to work, not waiting for the government to help. The big thing is the fact they werent screaming how no one is helping them while sitting around and not doing anything themselves.

I am not saying the people in NEw Orleans should go and rebuild the houses, streets, levees, sewers themsleves, what I am saying is that they could at least go back to their comminuties and start cleaning up their homes, or at least whats left of their properties, or helping thier neighbors with their stuff. thats all. Watching an Oprah special from there this week, no one was doing anything. Nothing. Just complaining that Bush isnt doing anything and the government isnt doing anything.

Look, I know the average citizen cant rebuild a levee. Duh.
The US really didnt help Poland and the Eastern block nations. Neither did Russia. Hell, my family lived in a city in southern Poland that was 97% demolished during the war, moreso than any other city in Europe. Jaslo, Poland. My grandparents remember how no one was coming to help them rebuild the city. No big $$ from Russia, or the US, or france, or England nothing. The people just came from around Poland (scrounged whatever they could to assist in rebuilding) and got to work, not waiting for the government to help. The big thing is the fact they werent screaming how no one is helping them while sitting around and not doing anything themselves.

I am not saying the people in NEw Orleans should go and rebuild the houses, streets, levees, sewers themsleves, what I am saying is that they could at least go back to their comminuties and start cleaning up their homes, or at least whats left of their properties, or helping thier neighbors with their stuff. thats all. Watching an Oprah special from there this week, no one was doing anything. Nothing. Just complaining that Bush isnt doing anything and the government isnt doing anything.
Eastern Bloc, occupied by russia, ergo, russias problem.

And yes, it seems like a very good idea to go into buildings that have been condemned and start cleaning, considering thats what a large part of the city is, if it is still standing at all.

aaaand [/hijack]

To bring the thread back on topic, I'm sure we can all agree that homosexual activity for profit in uniform is unacceptable* and brings the organisation into disrepute. I'm sure the prosecution will be speedy and decisive in this case.

* - Of course, there are always some... :rolleyes:

To bring the thread back on topic, I'm sure we can all agree that homosexual activity in uniform is unacceptable* and brings the organisation into disrepute. I'm sure the prosecution will be speedy and decisive in this case.

No, no we can't. Homosexual activity in uniform is hotness.

No, no we can't. Homosexual activity in uniform is hotness.
I disagree. Even in the case of lesbians, I fail to see the point. :headbang:

To bring the thread back on topic, I'm sure we can all agree that homosexual activity for profit in uniform is unacceptable* and brings the organisation into disrepute. I'm sure the prosecution will be speedy and decisive in this case.

* - Of course, there are always some... :rolleyes:
I gotta agree. When you join, you agree to certain things. You go against them, then you deserve the punishment. If you don't like the rules, well, you probably shouldn't have joined in the first place...

I disagree. Even in the case of lesbians, I fail to see the point. :headbang:

It's homosexual activity. Which already makes it hotness. But then add uniforms and discipline... *diverts thoughts to suppress erection*

I see no disrepute in this, and, to be honest, I find it hard to see how the US military could get more disreputable than it already is.

I gotta agree. When you join, you agree to certain things. You go against them, then you deserve the punishment. If you don't like the rules, well, you probably shouldn't have joined in the first place...
Yeah, there are clear written rules about it. And the thing which makes it worse is that it was done for financial gain. At least people could pretend it was a civil rights issue if it was just a home video, but this would constitute a breach of contract and bringing your employers into disrepute even in a private company.

Civilian lawyers aren't qualified to pass judgment on the UCMJ.

There is no regulation of which I am aware that forbids kissing your wife, g/f, or whomever in public while in uniform. If there is, I have violated it repeatedly. :p

But a man couldn't kiss his boyfriend in public while in uniform, could he?

But a man couldn't kiss his boyfriend in public while in uniform, could he?
Presumably so long as the act was never witnessed by a member of the armed forces? :confused:

I'm sure we can all agree that homosexual activity for profit in uniform is unacceptable
Actually, I'm not so sure we can all agree on that. The army shouldn't have the right to tell its soldiers what to do in their own time, outside the military bases, even if it involves the very uniform they're required to wear. Who the fuck heard of sodomy laws in the 21st century.

Actually, I'm not so sure we can all agree on that. The army shouldn't have the right to tell its soldiers what to do in their own time, outside the military bases, even if it involves the very uniform they're required to wear. Who the fuck heard of sodomy laws in the 21st century.
IIRC, the video was filmed at Ft Bragg.

IIRC, the video was filmed at Ft Bragg.
I doubt it. The way I see things, the soldiers filmed were stationed in Ft. Bragg, but that doesn't mean the video was actually filmed in Ft. Bragg.
For the record, though, had it been filmed inside the actual base, I would definitely agree that it is not acceptable. However, I believe this isn't the case.

Actually, I'm not so sure we can all agree on that. The army shouldn't have the right to tell its soldiers what to do in their own time, outside the military bases, even if it involves the very uniform they're required to wear. Who the fuck heard of sodomy laws in the 21st century.
Oh come on. Picture for a moment a male and female pair of UPS employees making a porno movie and selling it on an online pornography site.

OK, you can stop picturing it.

...

I SAID - ! :rolleyes:

Anyway. You think they wouldn't have disciplinary procedings launched if it was discovered by the company? Every employment contract states you cannot do anything to bring your employers into disrepute, and this is one of those things which most HR departments would say is out of line. The US Army happens to place particular emphasis on homosexual offences too.

You haven't read a word of the above paragraph. You're still thinking about the couriers and lame "Your package is here!" one-liners, aren't you? :rolleyes:

If you are wearing the uniform of the US military, you are representing them. All the time. That is what you sign on for, and why, if you are on leave, you aren't supposed to wear any part of the uniform except your tags.

Its no different from when I lifeguard, I can't smoke while wearing my suit. I represent the town, and therefore am restricted, even if I am off duty.

you sign a contract. you break that contract, then they have every right to do whatever with you.

Oh come on. Picture for a moment a male and female pair of UPS employees making a porno movie and selling it on an online pornography site.

OK, you can stop picturing it.

...

I SAID - ! :rolleyes:

Anyway. You think they wouldn't have disciplinary procedings launched if it was discovered by the company? Every employment contract states you cannot do anything to bring your employers into disrepute, and this is one of those things which most HR departments would say is out of line. The US Army happens to place particular emphasis on homosexual offences too.

You haven't read a word of the above paragraph. You're still thinking about the couriers and lame "Your package is here!" one-liners, aren't you? :rolleyes:
Actually no. In case they were UPS employees as opposed to Army soldiers, I would feel the exact same way. A man's personal decission is his own, regardless of the clothes he wears. Its really quite simple. The only disciplinary action I would request, is for the uniform (whether Army or UPS) to be thoroughly washed.
Also, I resent your use of the phrase "homosexual offences". Those simply do not exist. Homosexuality is not an offence, nor is engaging in gay sex. You may have meant intolerance towards homosexuals, but I believe the particular emphasis on that needs to go away as well.

Actually no. In case they were UPS employees as opposed to Army soldiers, I would feel the exact same way. A man's personal decission is his own, regardless of the clothes he wears. Its really quite simple. The only disciplinary action I would request, is for the uniform (whether Army or UPS) to be thoroughly washed.
Also, I resent your use of the phrase "homosexual offences". Those simply do not exist. Homosexuality is not an offence, nor is engaging in gay sex. You may have meant intolerance towards homosexuals, but I believe the particular emphasis on that needs to go away as well.
You sign a contract that says you will not engage in acts that defame the corporate name. As such, they do have a say in what happens with their uniform. Out of uniform is one thing. In uniform is quite another.

And homosexual offences is the proper term as that is what the group in question refers to it as. Do I think its shitty? yes. But the US military does have the don't ask dont' tell policy, which makes homosexuality something which is reasons to be discharged.

Hang on, so if I buy surplus an army uniform I can do whatever I want in it, but if I am achually hired by the army, I cannot. Why? Either way you're representing the army, or neither time you are. I truely cannot understand the difference. Unless it says in the contract they sign that they will not commit sexual acts while in uniform; I don't think there is a case.

Hang on, so if I buy surplus an army uniform I can do whatever I want in it, but if I am achually hired by the army, I cannot. Why? Either way you're representing the army, or neither time you are. I truely cannot understand the difference. Unless it says in the contract they sign that they will not commit sexual acts while in uniform; I don't think there is a case.
They were at a military base.

Hang on, so if I buy surplus an army uniform I can do whatever I want in it, but if I am achually hired by the army, I cannot. Why? Either way you're representing the army, or neither time you are. I truely cannot understand the difference. Unless it says in the contract they sign that they will not commit sexual acts while in uniform; I don't think there is a case.
you have no direct legal contractual ties to the US government or army if you simply buy a uniform. I mean, anyone can buy camo. the formal uniforms, I don't think you can ( I may be wrong...I know you could buy a replica). The difference is when you join the army, you choose, voluntarily, that you will represent them in the best possible light. If you buy a uniform, you make no such agreement. The contract, as most do, probably says that you will not commit any acts that will lessen the corporate name. Sex acts videotaped while in uniform with the intent to distrubute and make a profit is very clearly one of those acts.

you have no direct legal contractual ties to the US government or army if you simply buy a uniform. I mean, anyone can buy camo. the formal uniforms, I don't think you can ( I may be wrong...I know you could buy a replica). The difference is when you join the army, you choose, voluntarily, that you will represent them in the best possible light. If you buy a uniform, you make no such agreement. The contract, as most do, probably says that you will not commit any acts that will lessen the corporate name. Sex acts videotaped while in uniform with the intent to distrubute and make a profit is very clearly one of those acts.
Isn't that a bit like companies firing their employees for smoking when they're off the clock?

Isn't that a bit like companies firing their employees for smoking when they're off the clock?
You can't drink in police uniform even if off duty, as it brings the office into disrepute. You also can't film a porno and sell it. It makes sense to me. I doubt anyone would have given a damn had they not been actual employees of Organisation X, wearing the uniform of Organisation X.

You can't drink in police uniform even if off duty, as it brings the office into disrepute. You also can't film a porno and sell it. It makes sense to me. I doubt anyone would have given a damn had they not been actual employees of Organisation X, wearing the uniform of Organisation X.Well, there certainly is legal precedent, but that doesn't make it right. Furthermore, the concept of "disrepute" is vague and subjective.

Oh yes, whatever is wrong with the damn faggots, how dare they enjoy some pleasure interspersed with homophic insults and abuse.:rolleyes:

Isn't that a bit like companies firing their employees for smoking when they're off the clock?
slight difference between having a cigarette and making a porn with the intent to distribute it. while there are some companies that wouldn't care all that much, there are many that would a great deal...Disney comes to mind, along with alot of hotel groups. They have the right to say "when you are in uniform, you will act this way", and if you have agreed to that, they have the right to fire you for doing otherwise. If I signed a contract that said I wouldn't smoke in uniform, and I got caught smoking, they would be within their rights to fire me.

Furthermore, the concept of "disrepute" is vague and subjective.
It's enough to get you fired without any possibility of referring the matter to an employment tribunal for appeal. It may be vague in principle, but a case like this is clear-cut.

Incidentally, regarding legal precedent, recent cases involving airline employees spring to mind.

Well, there certainly is legal precedent, but that doesn't make it right. Furthermore, the concept of "disrepute" is vague and subjective.
if it was disrepute that was mild, like maybe smoking or something else, then I'm sure they would treat it very different...perhaps just give a slap on the wrist or what have you. Making porn and selling it is very clearly going to bring negative press to whatever group is involved, be it directly or indirectly.

Same as a porn can't use UPS's uniforms without their permission. UPS owns the insignias and the like. They can use something very similar, but unless UPS agreed to them using it, it can be a trademark/copyright lawsuit.

They have the right to say "when you are in uniform, you will act this way", and if you have agreed to that, they have the right to fire you for doing otherwise. I don't agree. They have the right to say "when you are on the clock, you will act this way", and there is the law which agrees with them, but i don't agree that the law is based upon anything sound, and will eventually be overturned.

If I signed a contract that said I wouldn't smoke in uniform, and I got caught smoking, they would be within their rights to fire me.I think we can agree that there are some things that shouldn't be firable offenses just because somebody stuck them in a contract. Furthermore, the cases involving smokers weren't done while the smokers were in uniform (not that what clothing the smokers were wearing should matter.)

It's enough to get you fired without any possibility of referring the matter to an employment tribunal for appeal. It may be vague in principle, but a case like this is clear-cut.I don't think we have any type of employment tribunals here.

if it was disrepute that was mild, like maybe smoking or something else, then I'm sure they would treat it very different...perhaps just give a slap on the wrist or what have you. Making porn and selling it is very clearly going to bring negative press to whatever group is involved, be it directly or indirectly.I don't agree that simply because somebody does something off the clock that brings negative press, then it is a firable offense.

Same as a porn can't use UPS's uniforms without their permission. UPS owns the insignias and the like. They can use something very similar, but unless UPS agreed to them using it, it can be a trademark/copyright lawsuit.A copyright lawsuit would be a different thing, and would involve the makers/publishers of the porn and not the actors within. I'm also not sure if the U.S. Government can copyright anything.

I don't agree. They have the right to say "when you are on the clock, you will act this way", and there is the law which agrees with them, but i don't agree that the law is based upon anything sound, and will eventually be overturned.

I think we can agree that there are some things that shouldn't be firable offenses just because somebody stuck them in a contract. Furthermore, the cases involving smokers weren't done while the smokers were in uniform (not that what clothing the smokers were wearing should matter.)

I don't think we have any type of employment tribunals here.

I don't agree that simply because somebody does something off the clock that brings negative press, then it is a firable offense.

A copyright lawsuit would be a different thing, and would involve the makers/publishers of the porn and not the actors within. I'm also not sure if the U.S. Government can copyright anything.
I agree that not everything is a fireable offence...smoking, eating, fraternizing...all that on private time is okay. But, and this is a huge but, when you are in uniform, you are representing the group. Your actions will be reflected on the entire group. Making a porn will most definatly bring negative feedback. Making that porn with the intent for others to see it (ie, not you and your girlfriend/boyfriend, but for the purposes of profit and distribution) is clearly going to soil the name of the group. And yes, if an employer added into their contract what is and is not okay to do in your own time, you must abide by that as soon as you have signed your name. If I had on my lifeguard suit or shirt, and was seen drinking or smoking by one of my bosses, even if it was at my home, I could have been fired as I signed a contract that stated these actions were prohibited. As such, regardless of me being off shift, I still had to abide by the rules of my employer. If I wanted, I could have chosen a job that didn't have these restrictions. I signed the contract, and was expected to follow it.

While I agree that maybe things shouldn't be fireable offences (such as me shooting a gun at a firing range wearing my "staff" shirt, which is ultimatly why I had to leave that job) they are. I chose my employer and agreed to their terms. I broke the terms, and they were justified in requesting my resignation, although I don't agree that it was something worth the ammount of effort, and a verbal or written warning would have been plenty.

The reason why I brought up the copyright thing is to point out that, even if it was employees who owned the uniforms, the business "owns" those uniforms (and any made that carry their trademarks) and therefore have control over what is done in them. If a company is clearly working to keep their name out of certain things, then they have the right to restrict employee actions.

No matter. Eastern European gay military porn is much better.

You're one sick fuck, Fass.

That's what you get for a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

You're one sick fuck, Fass.

What's sick about that? They're grown men who have pretty regular sex with each other, and they happen to be in the army and have ultra hot uniforms. I don't see the freak.

It probably does (I don't know what the pay is in the US military, but gay porn can indeed be quite lucrative), but with gay porn at least you're doing something honourable.
You've got a really good point there :D

I agree that not everything is a fireable offence...smoking, eating, fraternizing...all that on private time is okay. But, and this is a huge but, when you are in uniform, you are representing the group. I don't agree that when you're in uniform, you're representing the group. When you're on the clock, or in the capacity of doing your job in some other way, yes, but not simply because you're wearing a piece of clothing. If my wearing my Nirvana t-shirt meaning that I'm representing them?

Your actions will be reflected on the entire group. Making a porn will most definatly bring negative feedback. Making that porn with the intent for others to see it (ie, not you and your girlfriend/boyfriend, but for the purposes of profit and distribution) is clearly going to soil the name of the group. The reason that they are getting so much negative feedback isn't because they did it, but because the army is discharging them/putting them on trial for it.

And yes, if an employer added into their contract what is and is not okay to do in your own time, you must abide by that as soon as you have signed your name. If I had on my lifeguard suit or shirt, and was seen drinking or smoking by one of my bosses, even if it was at my home, I could have been fired as I signed a contract that stated these actions were prohibited. As such, regardless of me being off shift, I still had to abide by the rules of my employer. If I wanted, I could have chosen a job that didn't have these restrictions. I signed the contract, and was expected to follow it.

While I agree that maybe things shouldn't be fireable offences (such as me shooting a gun at a firing range wearing my "staff" shirt, which is ultimatly why I had to leave that job) they are. I chose my employer and agreed to their terms. I broke the terms, and they were justified in requesting my resignation, although I don't agree that it was something worth the ammount of effort, and a verbal or written warning would have been plenty.I wasn't saying that it wasn't a firable offense, I was saying that it shouldn't be.

I don't agree that when you're in uniform, you're representing the group. When you're on the clock, or in the capacity of doing your job in some other way, yes, but not simply because you're wearing a piece of clothing. If my wearing my Nirvana t-shirt meaning that I'm representing them?

You do not have to enter any sort of contract in order to recieve a Nirvana t-shirt. Same goes for if you bought an army uniform from a surplus store.

You do not have to enter any sort of contract in order to recieve a Nirvana t-shirt. Same goes for if you bought an army uniform from a surplus store.And since you can get the uniform from a surplus store, you don't have to have entered into the contract to get one, which is a further reason why I don't believe that wearing the uniform means that you're representing the company.

Oh come on. Picture for a moment a male and female pair of UPS employees making a porno movie and selling it on an online pornography site.

OK, you can stop picturing it.

...

I SAID - ! :rolleyes:

Anyway. You think they wouldn't have disciplinary procedings launched if it was discovered by the company? Every employment contract states you cannot do anything to bring your employers into disrepute, and this is one of those things which most HR departments would say is out of line. The US Army happens to place particular emphasis on homosexual offences too.

You haven't read a word of the above paragraph. You're still thinking about the couriers and lame "Your package is here!" one-liners, aren't you? :rolleyes:

never worked anywhere or applied anywhere that had those terms in the contract. all my contracts have said "employment is at-will and either the employee or employer may terminate it any time that they see fit without prior notice" nothing about defament. Besides, the UPS employ being fired is not equivelent to the soilder being legaly disiplined.

I don't agree that when you're in uniform, you're representing the group. When you're on the clock, or in the capacity of doing your job in some other way, yes, but not simply because you're wearing a piece of clothing. If my wearing my Nirvana t-shirt meaning that I'm representing them?

The reason that they are getting so much negative feedback isn't because they did it, but because the army is discharging them/putting them on trial for it.

I wasn't saying that it wasn't a firable offense, I was saying that it shouldn't be.
well, technically, people will form opinions about Nirvana fans partly based off of what you do. But that is hardly a uniform. When you are in uniform, you are part of the group and are expected to act properly.
They're getting negative feedback from both sides.
And I think the company (or military) has the right to choose what they fire someone for.