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…

  1. Sex work is real, valid work.
  2. There is nothing wrong with sex work. Sex-shaming is Puritanical horseshit.
  3. “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.
  4. Every other argument criticizing her for her sex work during her non-teaching hours is fucking moot.
  • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
    720·
    8 months ago

    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.

          • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
            319·
            8 months ago

            Ok so now it’s the employers who made the nazi comparison, that’s progress. Maybe at some point we’ll get you to admit you made a dumb comparison.

            • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              192·
              8 months ago

              1. That’s a different person, genius

              2. Nobody compared anything, for the love of god

              “I support companies having this right because if they didn’t I’d be forced to work with Nazis more often” is a very straightforward concept

          • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
            413·
            8 months ago

            I’m saying people with different beliefs have the same rights and can use them according to their beliefs.

            That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

              • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
                213·
                8 months ago

                First tell me why you should be able to infringe on people’s rights because of your beliefs instead of generally recognized protections. You know, the same point homophobes make to not serve gay people.

                Don’t worry. I’m not making a comparison 😉

                • AdmiralShat@programming.devEnglish
                  83·
                  8 months ago

                  I literally said what someone posts to social media isn’t a protected class. I literally said that. I actually, literally said

                  • Patapon Enjoyer@lemmy.world
                    29·
                    8 months ago

                    Good for you. So everyone who isn’t a protected class might as well be nazis when it comes to protections.

                • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                  42·
                  8 months ago

                  You know, the same point homophobes make to not serve gay people.

                  Except the cases about homophobes refusing to serve gay people aren’t about refusing to serve gay people generally - they’re about refusing to engage in speech they oppose on commission. The case with the homophobic baker wasn’t refusing to sell a gay couple a cake off the shelf - they were refusing to accept a commission to create a custom cake, and a lot of their argument was over whether or not a cake design is speech in the same way an artwork is and whether the 1st Amendment trumps anti-discrimination laws.