I think you are misunderstanding me @pendleflyer
I think there should be an expectation in jobs where you are governing or working with vulnerable people that you adhere to certain behaviour standards. Even when your personal preferences aren't illegal. So no public profiles on OF as an example. Not allowing personal political/religious views to affect workplace behaviour. Examples being that teachers shouldn't over share personal views with students or attempt to influence them politically etc. Even when those views are perfectly legal.
Re 'weird shit', supposing you had a teacher who was a supporter of incel type influencers - if that was kept completely private and never bled into their behaviour in the workplace, you'd have to respect their right to their own opinion, even if foul. And that's why you need moral judgement in workplaces, to ensure there is no bleed into their public role. But if said teacher had a SM presence that espoused those views, you would have a right to not want them working with your kids, because at that point they would have compromised their ability to do their job properly. Hence the rules around certain jobs having moral expectations around behaviour. Even if the behaviour doesn't stray into the illegal. An extreme example but conduct rules have to account for the extreme.
Now obviously none of that counts for newsreaders and tv presenters. I've never said that HE is sitting in judgment of anyone else and I personally don't care who he sleeps with etc. But I do care if he's paid a barely legal drug addict for photos because that strays into exploitation. If this is something he's done, then I don't want to see him reading the news and I don't want my money contributing to his (imo) grossly bloated salary. And since I don't get to opt out of paying for it, I think I'm allowed to have opinions on that.
It's not about sex, it's about potential exploitation. If the person selling these pictures was older, not drug addicted then I think people's views would be more live and let live.
No one wants to see a return to the NOTW days, which ruined lives with needless prying into the personal business that was not in the public interest so had no need to be published. I don't think this is the same thing, even if it did come from the Sun.
I guess the other thing with TV is that a presenter has a public persona and if that's compromised and viewers get the 'ick' for want of a better phrase, then the value of that presenter to their employer is lost - the salary is in part paid because the presenter brings a certain image or characteristic to the role. It's not solely about their ability to read an autocue. So an employer has an expectation that personal conduct won't compromise that public persona.