"Setting aside the morality of the industry, will even the best-intentioned porn star put her child in danger of stalkers?"

And a porn star is more at risk from stalkers than any other celebrity exactly how? If that's a measure of parental fitness, then there are thousands of celebrities who should lose their children. Not to mention that according to the Stalking Resource Center -- National Center for Victims of Crime -- 1 out of every 12 women will be stalked during her lifetime. Maybe we should take everyone's children away and lock them up somewhere safe from the big bad world.

What she was doing was legal, she should have been able to keep her legal name private, and it shouldn't impact the relationship with her kid.

First off, I wonder why the reporter thought it was acceptable to give out Mz Berlin's true identity, thus potentially making it easier for stalker-types to harass her and put her life in jeopardy. Secondly, unless the child's father can prove conclusively that her profession puts their son in danger and has solid proof of such, taking away any of her parental rights is selfish. To base a decision on the perception of mom's profession as opposed to the reality of her living situation is so medieval. Adding the demand that she move to Louisiana in order to have those visitation rights restored sounds like the kind of thing a control freak would come up with. Perhaps that is why she divorced him in the first place. Wonderful example you set for your son there dude.

Just as there can be lawsuits for discrimination based on race, religion, political affiliation, etc - I don't see why discrimination is allowed to be directed at sex workers. Being a sex worker surely falls into the same category.

They get discrimination from everyone: feminists, media, employers, hypocrites - mostly circular logic along the lines of 'I don't respect your choice to be a sex worker because if you choose to be a sex worker no one will respect you!'

One of the most famous porn stars out there was having a Wikipedia battle where some asshole repeatedly included her real name on her Wikipedia entry, claiming it was 'in the public interest to know, therefore deserves to be in Wikipedia'. The porn star repeatedly tried to remove it in the interest of her own privacy and safety.

Just treat them with the same respect that any other human being deserves and there's no problem.

If you are a COP.

What is the problem with someone else doing that sort of stuff, especially if it is pretend?

I agree with Quincy Archer: the ex is using this revelation to manipulate her. Eesh, I feel sorry for her troubles.

Someone in the public limelight can publish whatever they want on their own website - leaving out what they want to leave out and not having their words edited for gross misinterpretation (and therefore greater entertainment value). But as soon as they give an interview to "traditional media" they get no control whatsoever over how their words or edited or the context in which they are placed - or even whether or not the dirt wad reported decides to publish their real name.

Really, if you were a public star, which route would you take if you were trying to get publicity. Personally, I would tell any reported who isn't going to give me final edit to go take a hike.

1) Why on EARTH would Matt Smith reveal Mz Berlin's real name when she requested anonymity? That was an egregious lapse in professionalism. It sounds like an act of petty revenge on Mr. Smith's part.

2)Why did Mz Berlin's amicable relationship with her ex-husband deteriorate after she was "outed" in SF Weekly? I almost feel as if something has been left out of the narrative. How amicable were they before the interview? If the ex knew she was doing porn, why did the "scope" of it bother him enough to erase her right to visitation? Under what conditions did the ex have full custody in the first place and why will he only allow visitation if she moves back to LA? I feel badly for her, but it doesn't sound as if she was completely honest about her profession with her ex spouse.

3)I assume Mz Berlin's face is visible in her films. Wouldn't she be physically recognizable to her fans anyway? I completely commiserate with her on her loss of privacy, but wouldn't performing in pornographic films also expose her to public attention regardless of whether her legal name was publicly known or not? If she has chosen such a visible profession, shouldn't she expect an equal loss of privacy extending, unfortunately, to her son?

I certainly believe a pornographic actress is capable of being a worthy parent in theory, but I would also assume that said actress would understand that the nature of her profession would require an advanced level of parenting skills that the average 9-to-5 parent would have to face. If Mz Berlin is frightened for her safety because her fans now know who she is, that might be a sign that she hasn't completely considered all the possible consequences of enjoying a pornographic career. I would never fault her for being a porn actress, but I do question how well she has thought about how her profession could impact her family life. Unfortunately, all working women have to make conscientious decisions about our careers, particularly about how our careers could possibly impact our families. I fail to understand why Mz Berlin didn't make the same considerations.

My first thought was the reporter had an agenda and that agenda was far more important that the safety of the interviewee. Very unprofessional and were I his editor, he would fired and kicked out of the office on his keister.

if that's a yes, then it shouldn't be an issue.

morality is such a relative term that a judge should not limit parental rights based on morality he or she dissaproves of.