Eric,
I got to hand it to you, man. A real tour de force. Let me see if I can keep up.
I tend to try to get everything responded to at once. That sometimes results in long posts.
Um, this is one school system here. They're not in charge of teachers "in various locations in this country." Unless there is some incompetent or abusive teacher in her district that they know about and haven't dismissed, those other teachers aren't relevant.
Guilty of generalizing to some extent, I suppose - but this is so much LESS of a problem than so many things that could occur in the realm of teaching that it boggles my mind that it's even an issue.
The "so what" is in the article that you quoted:
You can claim that "they just got the creepy-crawlies," but they have given a much different reason. They say it would be a distraction. You may doubt that, but that is only speculation by someone far removed from the situation. (Unless you live there, maybe?)
It's a distraction, largely, because they MADE it one. They have no right to make a problem and then fire her because of that problem of their own creation. And when you send out a letter to the entire district saying, "Tell your kids not to look up their teacher's sex films," what do you REALLY think is going to happen?
And when they base {ALMOST} their entire argument around the fact that she used to do porn? I kinda have to believe that that's their real overriding issue.
Because it isn't. The fact that something bad happens does not make it a punishment. Punishment implies that someone is being brought to justice, or is being taught a lesson. This lady (rightly or wrongly) is just being let go, by an organization that no longer feels she is an asset.
As I think I said, I might not have all the information - I'm going on what I've read in several articles. But I recall reading *ONE* allegation that she lied on her resume, which she may or may not have actually done (and I *KNOW* I stated that if she did in fact put down a lie on her application, as opposed to merely omitting stuff she might have seen as irrelevant, she almost certainly doesn't have any grounds for complaint), and the district apparently does NOT have any sort of BS "moral turptitude" clause in their contracts, I don't see that they ought to be ABLE to fire her for having done porn.
Although, FWIW, she did work in porn while holding a previous teaching job.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/stacie-halas-teacher-dism_n_1543480.html
Yup. I think that's the article where I got that she decided that she'd enjoyed it. And I don't especially think that THAT was wrong of her, either.
According to the articles in huffpo, the students did the original "tattling."
Misread that one, then. I did, I mean, I'd thought it was other teachers coming forward with the links. I don't believe it really changes things at all, myself.
That right there could be evidence that her private life is affecting student education. (It could be. Might not be. You and I don't know.) And what planet do you live on, if you think the administration had any choice but to inform parents?
Been a lifelong resident and native of Sol III, thanks for asking.
Did they feel it necessary to inform the parents of other teachers' former jobs? That John had been in the military, Jesse drove a garbage truck, Sara worked at the local bar?
No? Hmmm...
In the most litigious society on Earth? And you blame the school for the fact that the students found out? The students were the ones that told the admins. If any of the kids found out from the letters that went out to their parents, sounds like the parents are to blame for that one.
Oh, I'll agree substantially with that - though you might be surprised at what kids will find out, perhaps, even when their parents fondly imagine they're being stealthy and crafty about keeping secrets. But if you think something might be a distraction issue, the way to keep it from becoming one is NOT to send out letters to every family in the county.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/stacie-halas-fired-porn-film_n_1437467.html
They ARE claiming that she lied. They are also claiming that her past is a distraction. So...
From the information that's come out, they don't have a leg to stand on, and yet again, if her past is a mass distraction, it's because THEY MADE IT SO.
Again, just speculation on your part. Those on the scene say otherwise.
No argument is being made that she is incompetent; the district is responsible for having made this into a major distraction issue and thus has no right to use that against her. I maintain that my original statement was and is correct.
Below is a collection of beliefs you accuse me of holding.
Not guilty of saying or thinking those things. 
Fair enough - I've been taking your statements as being morally-disapproving and judgmental. If they were not intended that way, you have my apologies.
I don't think sex is icky, either. I know about sex. I have done it before.
Where's that Orson Welles clapping gif...
Porn is harmful, and many people disapprove of it for good and valid reasons. Failed analogy is failed.
Disagree. CAN it be harmful? Of course, in many different ways. Of course, that applies to basically anything and everything else in the world, as well. Pornography is not, in and of itself, inherently harmful or something which violates anyone's rights. Her having done porn, so long as she did so of her own free will, harmed *NO ONE*.
Correction - people can and do disapprove of it for good and valid reasons, I'll agree with THAT part. But even there, their own "good and valid reasons" may or may not be good and valid for others, and they cannot be permitted to FORCE those "good and valid reasons" on others. If they have personal issues with it, they can remove themselves from the field without harming anyone else.
I can't help but read that in an Al Gore voice. 
No one's saying she shouldn't be forgiven, or that she can't be redeemed. But forgiveness is not a magic wand that does away with consequences, at least not on this earthly plain. And no one's saying that she can't have a good job somewhere. She's just made it difficult for herself. Besides, forgiveness is a function of individuals; not school districts; certainly not government schools. The individuals in charge can forgive her; the parents can forgive her; but that doesn't necessarily mean they should pay her to teach their children. That whole distraction thing, and the honesty thing, again. These are their kids, you know?
And her past job has *NO BEARING* either way on her ability to teach their kids. But the district - as embodied by the individuals in question - is seeking to destroy her livelihood over something which is irrelevant to her performance as a teacher.
Once again, I stand on my earlier statement here. Those moralizing about how she's unfit to teach their kids should, IMO, do a little soul-searching and act a little more in accordance with the religion they're using as justification for their position.
There's a reason why American families don't sit down together and watch Polly Does Plymouth Colony, every Thanksgiving. It's because we think sex is icky and wrong. What else could it be?
Might be because it doesn't have much to do with the holiday?
Of course, neither does football - but I don't watch that either.
Trying to argue that we as a people AREN'T still prudish? There's a weird dichotomy at work here in which it (hypersexualized behavior) is so popular BECAUSE we regard it as naughty and dirty. Do you think we'd be as fascinated by it as we are if it were more matter-of-fact? I really don't think so.
I mean, look at this thread for an example!
{Edited to fix quote tags}
