Former UW-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow, fired over porn videos, sues for wrongful termination
Former University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow filed a federal lawsuit Monday in a last-ditch effort to reclaim his teaching job after he was fired last fall for appearing in pornographic videos with his wife.
The lawsuit argues Gow's termination violated the First Amendment and flouted the UW System's committment to free expression.
"I think this is an important moment for free speech and I'd like to think this will result in a court saying you can't fire someone for what they do on the internet on their own time," Gow, 64, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "It sounds grandiose but maybe we can get people to rethink pornography."
Milwaukee-based attorney Mark Leitner and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a national free speech-focused nonprofit, filed the lawsuit on Gow's behalf on Monday, the first day of spring semester classes at UW-La Crosse.
Had Gow not been fired last September, the semester would have marked his return to the classroom after nearly 17 years as chancellor.
The UW System did not immediately return a request for comment.
The lawsuit asks the court to order the UW Board of Regents to reinstate Gow as a tenured professor and award an unspecified amount in damages.
Gow's termination meant the loss of his $91,915 faculty salary and more than $313,000 in unused sick leave. A program allows state employees to convert unused sick leave to pay for health insurance premiums upon retirement. UW-La Crosse said Gow's amount could have potentially purchased health insurance for he and his wife through age 75.
"The First Amendment protects Dr. Gow's speech, even if it may be unpopular or contrary to the majority of public sentiment," the lawsuit said. "Indeed, the First Amendment is most important when the danger of stifling controversial speech is at its highest."
Gow and his wife filmed videos, sometimes with adult film stars, for years. The couple decided in late 2023 to post the videos on public platforms, such as OnlyFans, LoyalFans and PornHub.
The regents fired Gow as chancellor days after the UW System learned of his unorthodox hobby from a complainant who requested anonymity. Gow's contract, however, also came with a tenured faculty appointment.
During the disciplinary process to terminate Gow's professorship, UW System attorneys argued Gow would pose a "serious risk" for UW-La Crosse if he returned to the classroom. They said he displayed a pattern of poor judgment, citing his 2018 decision to invite an adult film actress he had filmed with to speak on campus and extensive media interivews.
UW System attorneys said legal precedent was on their side, pointing to a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case about a San Diego police officer fired after posting sex tapes online. The court ruled in favor of the city, which argued the officer's activity hampered the department's function and wasn't a matter of public concern.
Gow said the San Diego case was a was a poor and outdated comparison because the police officer wore his official city police uniform in the video and pantomimed police work, while he made brief and vague mentions on video to his job, such as a 'Midwestern location,' his 'academic career,' and one instance when his name was said on camera.
A faculty committee unanimously recommended Gow lose his teaching job. They said a professor creating porn videos in their private capacity wasn't unethical, but they found Gow's response after his pastime became public to be problematic. They said he "exploited" his role as a faculty member and capitalized on the controversy without the university's interests in mind.
Gow pointed to UW-La Crosse's strong financial position and healthy enrollment, saying these undercut claims about reputational harm.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel asked several experts last year to weigh the merits of Gow's case because he had publicly floated the idea of a lawsuit even before he was fired.
Corey Silverstein, one of only a few attorneys in the country who specialize in the adult entertainment industry, estimated wrongful termination claims by adult content creators are won less than 30% of the time, and even less so when it involves an educator. That's because employment contracts often have morality clauses requiring workers to meet a certain behavioral standard.
The UW-La Crosse employee handbook requires faculty to 'exhibit a level of behavior supporting the university mission."
Howard Schweber, a UW-Madison political science professor and expert on constitutional law, said one factor that may hurt Gow is his videos were not just private activities, but earning him money. Commercial expression is much less protected under the First Amendment than other forms of communication.
In the four months since Gow lost his job, he said he's felt "a little stir crazy." He's given interviews to a couple of podcasts and is working on his third book with his wife, Carmen Wilson, about their experience in the adult entertainment industry.
Wilson continues to create vegan cooking videos that Gow said he films. He said the two of them haven't filmed a sex video since they made their last one in summer 2023.
One of the more rewarding experiences Gow and Wilson recently had was speaking to a media law class at the University of Minnesota. They took a photo on the First Amendment bench in Murphy Hall, which houses the Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
The class clapped at the end of their talk, the instructor, Christopher Terry, said. Several went up to the couple afterward to ask for a selfie. Gow said the young students were much more open-minded than the administrators he faced off against over the past year.
Kelly Meyerhofer covers higher education in Wisconsin. Contact her at kmeyerhofer@gannett.com or 414-223-5168. Follow her on X (Twitter) at @KellyMeyerhofer.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Former UW-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow sues over porn videos
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Idaho rethinks LGBTQ rights as laws, symbols, and support face pushback
Stories by Idaho Statesman journalists, with AI summarization This collection of stories examines recent efforts by Idaho lawmakers and officials to restrict LGBTQ rights in public spaces, marriage, sports, education, and community symbols. State legislators advanced a resolution to revoke same-sex marriage rights and praised decisions by Boise State's women's volleyball team to opt out of matches involving transgender athletes. Businesses like Micron and St. Luke's have pulled back public support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs, with St. Luke's employees voicing disappointment over the decision not to fly the Pride flag during Pride Month. Boise officials kept flying the Pride flag at City Hall despite a new law banning non-government flags, and city leaders debated how to navigate the law's lack of penalties. At the Nampa Public Library, a youth club flyer led to public disputes, while statewide book bans faced lawsuits over their impact on LGBTQ content and First Amendment rights. Read the stories below. Boise State has forfeited two volleyball games against San Jose State this season, including one that was scheduled for Thursday. | Published November 19, 2024 | Read Full Story by Shaun Goodwin 'Unfortunately ... there are Republican factions that have infiltrated Idaho who only support constitutional rights if they are in alignment with what they believe.' | Published November 23, 2024 | Read Full Story by Carolyn Komatsoulis 'This is yet another example of the extreme wing of the Republican Party ginning up divisive social issues in order to create problems where none exist,' said Idaho's Democratic leadership. | Published January 7, 2025 | Read Full Story by Ian Max Stevenson Idaho voters should have enough self-respect to punish this abuse of government power at the ballot box. | Opinion | Published February 5, 2025 | Read Full Story by Bryan Clark Boise 'will continue' to fly the Pride flag outside City Hall, a spokesperson said. She did not answer a question about whether the city knew that it was illegal. | Published April 11, 2025 | Read Full Story by Sarah Cutler Idaho companies like Micron and St. Luke's face growing political pressure on diversity-related initiatives. | Published June 2, 2025 | Read Full Story by Angela Palermo We don't approach this viewpoint from a political or personal value system. We approach it from the lens through which we healthcare workers view every patient encounter... | Opinion | Published June 2, 2025 | Read Full Story by Undersigned St. Luke's employees The Trump administration has been rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. | Published May 31, 2025 | Read Full Story by Carolyn Komatsoulis Laws like this one can be problematic, a lawyer said. | Published June 5, 2025 | Read Full Story by Carolyn Komatsoulis The summary above was drafted with the help of AI tools and edited by journalists in our News division. All stories listed were reported, written and edited by McClatchy journalists.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump hails court ruling allowing White House to restrict AP access
President Trump celebrated a federal appeals court's ruling that allows the White House, for now, to restrict The Associated Press (AP) from the Oval Office and other limited spaces when reporting on the commander-in-chief. 'Big WIN over AP today,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked, in a 2-1 decision on Friday, an early April order from a district court judge that allowed the AP to regain its access to key White House spaces. The ruling blocked an April 8 order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden that found that the news wire's exclusion from the press pool, a small cadre of reporters reporting on the president's whereabouts, was unlawful. 'The White House is likely to succeed on the merits because these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao said in the Friday opinion, joined by Judge Gregory Katsas. AP's spokesperson Patrick Maks said the organization is 'disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options.' The White House's decision to exclude the AP originated from the news wire not wanting to use Gulf of America in its industry stylebook. The three-judge panel did not halt the part of McFadden's April order that provides AP access to the East Room. Judge Cornelia Pillard said in her dissent that being able to be in the press pool never relied on the news outlet's viewpoint until this year. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. Days after McFadden ruled in favor of AP in April, the White House removed a spot in the press pool normally occupied by wire services.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
