Here’s a conundrum you don’t think about every day: you’re working a buttoned-up job in the adult entertainment industry, but you want to transition into the national security sector. Will your foray into the X-rated as a software engineer, accountant, or other white-collar professional impact your ability to obtain a security clearance?
That may sound like a bizarre and unlikely hypothetical, except that it is a very real consideration for some tech sector employees working at rapidly-growing companies like OnlyFans or other online purveyors of pornography. So real, in fact, that The Wall Street Journal published a fascinating article on the topic: “The Risk and Reward of Taking the Unsexiest Job at a Sex Company.”
To be fair, the article didn’t focus on the national security sector specifically; I built that bridge myself. But it isn’t exactly a bridge too far. After all, how many of you reading this article work in some technology-related role? Likely many, given the prevalence of technology-focused job vacancies on ClearanceJobs and my own experience representing people in the security clearance process.
A lot of that technology expertise doesn’t discriminate by market sector. In other words, the same computer skills sought by, and honed at, companies selling sex are also valued at companies making fighter jets or even by Uncle Sam himself. Both sectors apparently pay well, so the career progression is entirely possible, if not probable.
Or is it? Is there some barrier standing in the way that allows government officials to impose a morality test on security clearance applicants?
The short answer is that there is no such barrier. Whatever one’s feelings on the sex industry, security clearance determinations are supposed to be about vetting an applicant’s ability and willingness to safeguard classified information…which is accomplished by evaluating their character.
That’s where things get murky. The Adjudicative Guidelines that govern eligibility determinations are intentionally written with flexibility. There is some reasonable necessity behind that – its impossible to predict every behavior, background, or scenario that might objectively warrant denying a security clearance.
On the other hand, I’ve criticized the Adjudicative Guidelines (especially Guidelines “A”, “E,” and “L”) for being so broadly written and subjective as to render them arbitrary and capricious. In a real sense, they fail one of the most basic maxims of law: that any legal standard of conduct must be written such that it places observers on reasonable notice of the prohibited behavior. Standards lacking in specificity are too open to debate and opinion, easily twisted to encompass a decision-maker’s personal feelings of morality or whims of the day. That is repugnant to our idea of due process, not to mention basic, fundamental fairness. It’s also a huge problem if you believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Unfortunately, these arguments are philosophical only given a series of judicial rulings enshrining near-total authority in the federal government’s Executive Branch to dictate the terms of access to classified information. Thus, the only answer to the question of can I get cleared with THAT employer on my resume is this: conceivably, yes, but maybe not. It would be tough for a federal agency to justify denying a security clearance solely on this basis, provided the business was federally legal and complied with all applicable regulations. However, perceptions of character are largely subjective…just like the Adjudicative Guidelines.
This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Although the information is believed to be accurate as of the publication date, no guarantee or warranty is offered or implied. Laws and government policies are subject to change, and the information provided herein may not provide a complete or current analysis of the topic or other pertinent considerations. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
