> Why is it in society's interest (or rather someone's twisted representation of society) that Jane be reported? Has she killed/harmed anyone or did any damage?

Sorry for not making this explicit enough. What I meant by "society's interests" is interests of each individual who is related to Jane. I assume that if we approached, say, Jane's parents and asked them whether they would want to know that their daughter is doing porn, in case she is, they would say yes. This makes knowing it one of her parents' interests. The same applies to other people, like Jane's friends and colleagues.

Killing and injuring people is not the only way to harm them. Not letting people get what they want is also harm to their interests.

So reporting Jane is in the interests of those people, who want to know about it.

> And some people (still) don't want to interact people of certain ethnicity, religion, disability, etc. Thankfully we have realised the stupidity of this and have laws to deal with it.

All the characteristics you list here are the ones which people do not choose, but are born with. This is what makes it immoral to differentiate people based on these characteristics. (I'm not sure if religion should be on this list. Religion is something you could hypothetically choose, but at the same time most people don't get to choose it, they are taught from the childhood that they'll burn in hell for having doubts in it.)

But there are other characteristics like person's ideological preferences and views (this is close to religion, if you ask me) which we still can use to differentiate people, and decide whether we want to interact with them and work with them. For example, I think it's perfectly fine not to want to talk to someone if that person is sexist or racist. Being a porn performer is one of such things -- people voluntarily choose to do this, and it also tells something about their views.

> Also, if she's working, shouldn't she be judged by her performance at work, and not what happens outside?

Indeed she should.

If things happening at and outside her work are two completely unrelated areas, then I completely agree with you. For example, this is the case if she works, say, as a programmer. But I don't think the same applies for teachers. Teachers do not only teach children math, they also take part in children's upbringing -- students spend a lot of time around their teachers (especially if it's a boarding school) and they absorb many things they hear and see. And many parents may not agree with teachers attitudes to certain things, and they may not to expose their children to these attitudes.

Also, students do not live isolated from the outside world. They use internet, they talk to one another, and they may find out that their teacher does porn. So no, things happening outside of work do matter for a teacher.

> So what? How does this give them the right to know what's going on [...]?

It doesn't give them right, but it makes them want to know if the teacher is doing porn. They don't need anyone to give them right to receive an anonymous email.

> [...] why do you consider it to be someone's moral duty to disclose it?

I never said I do.

> Because she's lying to harm anyone or gain anything from it; nobody is getting hurt by the lie. She's "lying" because society still attaches some stupid stigma around pornography and she doesn't want the fallout on her career/relationships when people like you catch wind of this.

About the harm, see the first paragraphs.

I get your perspective on this. You think that the stigma people attach to porn is "stupid", therefore the people who do that are stupid too and their interests and feelings do not matter.

To me, it looks like you're trying to dismiss other opinions only because they are different from yours or because they are bad according to your ideology. More or less like members of one religion "prove" other religions wrong by refering to the scriptures of their own religion.