Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

A Professor's Porn Predicament Implicates Freedom of Speech

By Vaidehi Mehta, Esq. | Last updated on

It’s looking like we can expect a lawsuit on the horizon soon involving questions of free speech and engaging in pornography.

The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents has unanimously decided to terminate Joe Gow, a communications professor and former chancellor of UW-La Crosse, following his involvement in producing and appearing in pornographic films. Gow, who served as chancellor for nearly 17 years, has been trying to retain his tenured teaching position, arguing that the First Amendment protected his activities.

Gow’s Porn Penchant

Joe Gow was a chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse for nearly 17 years. In 2018, he faced criticism for inviting porn actor Nina Hartley to speak on campus, an event funded by student fees.

In 2023, the University discovered that Gow's penchant for porn extended to his personal life, although that probably shouldn't have surprised them. The professor and his wife, Carmen, produced and appeared in pornographic videos, which were posted on adult websites.

The couple have used their experiences in the adult film industry to co-write two e-books that they've published under pseudonyms. They also run a channel on YouTube called "Sexy Healthy Cooking," where they cook meals with actors from the porn industry.

Learning about Gow's kinky personal life was apparently too much for the University administration to handle. Shortly after finding out, UW fired him from his position as chancellor.

Regents Decide to Nix Gow

The regents convened in a closed session before publicly voting to dismiss Gow, with no discussion in the open session. University attorneys contended that Gow's actions were unethical, violated his employment contract, damaged the university's reputation, and interfered with its mission.

Gow argued that his activities were protected by the First Amendment and sought to retain his tenured teaching position in the communications department. Despite Gow's assertion that his activities were conducted on his own time and did not reference the university, the regents deemed his behavior as causing "significant reputational harm."

Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman noted that Gow served at the pleasure of the regents and was not entitled to any specific process. He said that Gow's actions were "abhorrent" and that he failed to act as a role model. Linda Dickmeyer, chair of the UW-La Crosse communications department, opposed Gow's return to teaching, citing his long absence from the classroom and the potential impact on the university's mission.

Gow’s Appeal

Gow has been on paid leave since his dismissal. He tried to convince a personnel committee from the University’s board of regents to hear the appeal of his termination. The regents' personnel committee heard testimony by both sides.

University attorneys argued that Gow's actions were not protected speech under his employment contract and that he exploited his position to generate interest and revenue from the videos. Gow's attorney, Mark Leitner, defended his client's right to free speech, stating that the First Amendment is crucial for protecting controversial and unpopular speech. Wade Harrison, representing the University, maintained that Gow's pornographic videos were not protected by the First Amendment and that his conduct was "unethical, hypocritical, and unacceptable."

The committee unanimously decided that Gow should lose his tenured teaching position.

Will Gow Sue in Court?

Gow said he plans to file a lawsuit against the university, claiming that his free speech rights were violated.

Zach Greenberg, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, criticized the regents' decision as a "major blow to academic freedom and free speech rights." He argued that public universities should not sacrifice the First Amendment to protect their reputations.

The case has attracted national attention, raising questions about free speech and academic freedom. If it does go to court, it could significantly impact the law around constitutional rights.

Was this helpful?

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard