Teacher who resigned after her OnlyFans page was discovered says new employer fired her for violating social media policy
Teacher who resigned after her OnlyFans page was discovered says new employer fired her for violating social media policy
Brianna Coppage said she made $1 million on the platform, which she was using to supplement her teaching salary.
Had to supplement her $42,000 per year teacher salary with OF and made nearly $1 million in six months (almost 50 times as her salary) before the school caught wind of it and forced her to resign. Got a new job out of education and was fired five days later when they discovered news articles about her.
Edit: To those basically saying she had it coming because she made her OF account public...
- Sex work is real, valid work.
- There is nothing wrong with sex work. Sex-shaming is Puritanical horseshit.
- "But her students could find her OF!" is a problem their parents should have to solve. It is not her responsibility to use an alias, because of points 1 and 2.
- Every other argument criticizing her for her sex work during her non-teaching hours is fucking moot.
You're viewing a single thread.
They claim that I violated their social media policy, but will not respond to me with how I violated it.
WTH is social media policy? Is it written somewhere that employees can't have OF? (And also who found her on OF and snitch on her?)
It's probably some bullshit like "your social media presence cannot hurt the company" - i.e. if someone is a full on Nazi, clients could look them up and it being a controversy. But now it's applied to OF by puritans.
This, at its core, is why I agree with the right for this company to have this policy. I wouldn't want to be legally forced to employ and pay a Nazi and be seen associating with said Nazi, therefore I have to agree to the rights of others to do the same, even if I don't agree with their reasons
Workers having rights does not force employers to employ and associate with Nazis.
Then explain where the line is. Because racists are workers too, dork
I'd say somewhere far beyond having a second job but not nearly as far as hate speech. If you're confused about the concept I suggest you check out how labour laws in most developed nations.
You didn't answer their question at all, just tried to dodge it by talking about labor laws lol.
The only question there was where to draw the line, which I answered. Hate and other illegal stuff past the line, legal stuff not.
So just being a Nazi is fine as long as they don't commit any crimes?
If there's no hate it's questionable to call someone a Nazi. If hate is okay where you are that's an entirely separate issue and trampling workers' rights is not the solution.
You are equating hiring someone who makes and sells their own porn to hiring someone who subscribes to a hateful, violent ideology. They absolutely aren't the fucking same. One is a legal adult legally providing a digital service to other legal adults, and the other is a member of a group known specifically for violence to advance racial superiority. Only one of those people does anything that could ever lead to another person being harmed or threatened, and as such only one of them should be driven out of society by any means necessary. This is not a "both sides" thing, this is discrimination against someone who has caused no harm, plain and simple.
I'm not equating shit, don't fucking put words in my mouth. I'm not even reading the rest of that comment,
If you want your own freedoms you have to accept that others get their own feeedoms and can use them in ways you dont agree with
I didn't compare or equate anything, I just said I don't have to agree to their reasoning to acknowledge their right
Serious reading comprehension issue
Serious reading comprehension issue
Hi, new guy in the convo, dont point your guns at me, just wanted to point out the irony of you saying this after openly admitting you wouldn't even read the other person's comment in full
Which isn't a reading comprehension issue and isn't irony.
Sounds like you don't really understand either very well then. Get off your intellectual high horse. We're not debating the definition of irony like it's 2003. And if you can't see how in your case your reading comp issues "don't count" but in their case they're having some sort of personal failing then I don't know what to tell you. Since you're so smart why don't you go read up on the self-serving bias so you can throw that term around later without engaging in introspection too. At the end of it all you will still have failed to comprehend the meaning of what someone wrote to you, whether it's because you didn't try hard enough, you're too lazy, or too stupid. Failing grade is a failing grade. Ugh I'm tired of these high school report card metrics. But I guess coupling the high school language with the intellectual arrogance and poor attitude it reveals a lot about the level of maturity you're bringing to this conversation.
Now this is irony, actually, you're so wrapped up in your own idea of pseudo intellectualism that when you're challenged at all by anything you shit yourself. You talk about maturity, but at the first sign of a challenge you think I'm trying to assert myself intellectually and throw around highschool like an insult, which highlights that this is both projection and an insecurity
You need a nap? Maybe a time out?
I'm gonna scree shot this, btw, this reads like what a teenager who got mogged in front of his crush writes out and posts onto his Facebook wall
If you think they're right to fire her for porn say they're right for firing her for porn. Don't say they're right for firing her because nazis exist, that's an excuse not a reason.
We have the technology to tell apart porn makers and nazis, we don't need to treat them equally.
right
I think this is the issue, youre illiterate.
I'm saying they HAVE a right, not THAT they're right. Reread it, I said "their right" not "they're right"
Two different words with two different definitions
Public school system has failed miserably, because lol
And why do you think they should be equated to nazis when they exercise that right?
You're the one trying to say this, not me. Im not equating anything YOU are saying that I am because you can't read.
I'm saying people with different beliefs have the same rights and can use them according to their beliefs.
You're incapable of understanding the whole point. If you take their right to association away because ot doesn't align with your belif system, then what happens when a new person takes office and suddenly has a platform for taking peoples rights away?
What someone posts on social media isn't a protected class. With me, I don't want nazis, and thats my right, both personally and religiously, so when someone else has a different thing they don't want associated with, i can't say they don't have that right simply because I would associate with said thing
I'm pretty sure that it would mean something like "employees shouldn't post anything that embarrasses the employer".
that's exactly what it is. I work for an employer like that and i can unequivocally say that they are the best employer ever and do a lot of good for the world and never ever ever do anything wrong.
Is your employer in the room now?
So like if I post "Cease fire now!" and my employer is "embarrassed" I can get canned?
That would be your employer's thing, not mine, but yeah maybe if that's what they want to do.
She has enough money. You get a lawsuit, and you get a lawsuit….
Nearly all white collar employees are covered by a social media policy. We have social media training annually and have to sign a document saying we agree to a number of rules on our public accounts.