Poll of the Day > Mom is BANNED from Son's School cause she does LESBIAN PORN!! Is She a MILF???

(+) Yeah! (+)

30 y/o Victoria Triece from Florida was BANNED from volunteering at her son's elementary school because she had X-RATED content on a popular porn website made popular by celebs such as Bella Thorne and Cardi B as ANOTHER PARENT at the school SUBBED to her when they found her page on the site and blew the whistle to the entire parent committee and staff!!

She is now suing for 1 MILLION SMACKERS after she was axed as ADDition volunteer program when parents found out she has an adult subscription page that was revealed by a poison pen letter

Photos show her in underwear and embracing scantily clad outfits in bed but she insists she never acted inappropriately while volunteering at the school

She is no longer welcome at Sand Lake Elementary School of which her sons agd 5 and 10 attend

The sex worker assisted in organizing class parties and helped with lab assignments for her older son's class, something she said she wanted to do ver since she became a mother and is now outraged over the ban

She said "It affected a parent who went and paid to see my content, but then they had to go and send in thes ephotos of me to the school and make me not be allowed to be around children anymore which i've done and dedicated my life to for pretty much 5 years. I don't know who was told what i do. And now i'm supposed to walk into the building and i didn't know what was said to my son's teacher..i don't know what's been said about me to anyone at that school"

She always wanted to be part of volunteering for her children's school activities as her mother did for her growing up.

Her lawyers, Mark NeJame and John Zielinski claim she never received any formal documentation informing their decision to axe her and she understands tehre are going to be parents to get up in arms who wave their moral arms and wag their discriminating finger but the children never knew about it since she kept that information away from children and can't access her content unless you are an adult

The school district is refusing to comment pending litigation as Triece continues to say she never acted inappropriately volunteering as a handful of parents have reached out in support

Is Victoria a MILF?

https://i.imgur.com/OqHQZCc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/1IfgCCZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/m3sgicm.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/EqsN6u9.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/AdKIaDM.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/GSrBLpP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/g3mkr7q.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/UwpYPSi.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/KGlv5Om.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/D8iGPlx.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/LsFiQLp.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/97o3e2g.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/HA1EjTR.jpg
---

mrduckbear posted...

"It affected a parent who went and paid to see my content, but then they had to go and send in thes ephotos of me to the school

You know, she might actually be in a position to sue that person for piracy, if they distributed her paid material without her consent.

---

so not only are you making pointless topics, but you repeat them now? Do you have an originality left?

---

Yes despite too many tats

She's in good shape too

---

tbh, if they couldn't tell that she did porn just by looking at her, part of that is on them.

adjl posted...

You know, she might actually be in a position to sue that person for piracy, if they distributed her paid material without her consent.

And I'm sure any judge would love laughing that out of their courtroom.

JixHedgehog posted...

Yes despite too many tats

She's in good shape too

Yeah, the tattoos and spending too long in a tanning bed are a bit of a turnoff, but she's a good-looking chick.

---

Why wasn't the other person banned?

---

crazyisgood posted...

Why wasn't the other person banned?

...because she doesn't volunteer at the school?

---

Yeah she's hot. I love good ink.

---

Zeus posted...

And I'm sure any judge would love laughing that out of their courtroom.

Do you not think that sex workers have the same rights to their intellectual property that any other content creator has?

---

Zeus posted...

And I'm sure any judge would love laughing that out of their courtroom.

@Zeus here with another shit take. You know we should start cataloguing these because of how shit they are.

What the hell is a poison pen letter?
---

A lot better than these immature parents throwing tantrums because they dont want their kids to be protected and/or wear a mask.

---

adjl posted...

Do you not think that sex workers have the same rights to their intellectual property that any other content creator has?

I think fair use is an established doctrine where corporations might be able to get away with violating it to silence critics, but your average porn star doesn't have that kind of cachet. And I think most judges would roll their eyes if somebody even suggested that argument.

---

Zeus posted...

I think fair use is an established doctrine

And how, exactly, do you think that distributing it without authorization for the sole purpose of defaming her qualifies as "fair use"?

---

Revelation34 posted...

What the hell is a poison pen letter?

A letter that's wrote anonymously to be abusive or malicious.

---

Kimbos_Egg posted...

so not only are you making pointless topics, but you repeat them now? Do you have an originality left?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/79734165

He always does this...it's nothing new for Mr

adjl posted...

And how, exactly, do you think that distributing it without authorization for the sole purpose of defaming her qualifies as "fair use"?

You're literally asking how criticism is fair use, and you're even fucking acknowledging that it's criticism in your troll post. jfc, adjl

I'm like 90% sure you watch LWT so you saw just a few years ago how a guy tried to abuse copyright laws to silence critics, yet you're standing here defending that guy who -- thanks to HBO standing behind Oliver -- had his case thrown out.

---

Zeus posted...

You're literally asking how criticism is fair use, and you're even f***ing acknowledging that it's criticism in your troll post. jfc, adjl

Why are you equivocating artistic criticism to personal defamation? Those are two very different things.

Zeus posted...

I'm like 90% sure you watch LWT so you saw just a few years ago how a guy tried to abuse copyright laws to silence critics, yet you're standing here defending that guy who -- thanks to HBO standing behind Oliver -- had his case thrown out.

I don't, but I'm aware of plenty of similar issues. The one I've followed most closely would be Digital Homcide's attempt to sue the Jimquisition for defamation for being critical of their products, which was subsequently thrown out (rather, they were convinced not to go to court because it was guaranteed to go spectacularly poorly for them) because the criticism in question was specifically of their products and business practices (including the use of spurious copyright strikes and DMCA takedowns to silence critical youtube videos) and therefore did not qualify as defamation. I do know, however, that there are plenty of examples where creators have similarly attacked channels that don't have Sterling's legal resources available and had their entire channels lost because they couldn't fight back against them. That is indeed a problem, one which Google should be doing far more to address but does not because relying on indiscriminate algorithms to keep their corporate masters satisfied is much cheaper than providing actual oversight to protect smaller channels.

That's not remotely what's happened here. The material was not shared with the principal for the sake of critiquing it and helping the principal make an informed decision whether or not to subscribe to this woman's OF. It was shared with the principal for the sake of damaging her reputation and ability to work in her community. That is defamation. Defamation does not fall under fair use, so not only is the person in question guilty of defamation, they've also committed piracy.

---

adjl posted...

Why are you equivocating artistic criticism to personal defamation? Those are two very different things.

I don't, but I'm aware of plenty of similar issues. The one I've followed most closely would be Digital Homcide's attempt to sue the Jimquisition for defamation for being critical of their products, which was subsequently thrown out (rather, they were convinced not to go to court because it was guaranteed to go spectacularly poorly for them) because the criticism in question was specifically of their products and business practices (including the use of spurious copyright strikes and DMCA takedowns to silence critical youtube videos) and therefore did not qualify as defamation. I do know, however, that there are plenty of examples where creators have similarly attacked channels that don't have Sterling's legal resources available and had their entire channels lost because they couldn't fight back against them. That is indeed a problem, one which Google should be doing far more to address but does not because relying on indiscriminate algorithms to keep their corporate masters satisfied is much cheaper than providing actual oversight to protect smaller channels.

That's not remotely what's happened here. The material was not shared with the principal for the sake of critiquing it and helping the principal make an informed decision whether or not to subscribe to this woman's OF. It was shared with the principal for the sake of damaging her reputation and ability to work in her community. That is defamation. Defamation does not fall under fair use, so not only is the person in question guilty of defamation, they've also committed piracy.

That may be how it works in your country but definitely not in America.
---

Revelation34 posted...

That may be how it works in your country but definitely not in America.

I'm not really interested in how it does work so much as how it should work. It's a given that she's going to get hosed in court. Sex workers have been treated as second-class citizens for as long as sex work has been a thing. The question is why. People like Zeus are happy to dismiss cases like this with thinly-veiled misogynistic comments because they don't see anything wrong with it and simply accept it as the status quo. That needs to change, and it's not going to change unless the people demonstrating such flippant attitudes are called out on it and forced to justify their beliefs (and, with any luck, change them after realizing they can't).

---

I am fine with tats but piercings are a big no for me.
I doubt anyone with piercings cares though as I pretty ugly (beggars cant be choosers I guess) but if a woman with piercings was interested in me I would not reciprocate.

I am not a lawyer but my lifestyle requires me to understand a little bit about IP law and my guess is it was probably fair use. If the person who spread those pictures did so in order to discuss the subject of those pictures and only distributed enough of the work to have that conversation within a reasonable context, that's at least somewhat likely to be called a fair use in court. To put it another way I don't think it's likely that the use of the work, to talk about some aspect of the work, will be denied a fair use defense.

I doubt it's really defamation either. There's a statement of fact that this woman is a sex worker of some description, followed by an opinion about this fact, that her position within the community is incompatible with her vocation. The person who wrote this letter has every right to express both of those things.

So where that leaves us is with her going after the school directly. Personally I hope she has enough of a case to at least push for a settlement that includes her legal fees and an apology. It's none of the school's business if she poses for erotic photos, and nothing she's done should disqualify her from participating in school related activities with her child.

---

adjl posted...

Why are you equivocating artistic criticism to personal defamation? Those are two very different things.

Criticism doesn't have to specifically artistic (although, in a technical sense, this still IS an artistic criticism). You've literally pigeonholed it to push a false narrative which, at best, is built on logical fallacies.

adjl posted...

That's not remotely what's happened here.

You're literally suggesting that the legal system be abused to silence critics. That's what you're doing. Just fucking own it already.

You've advocating a terrible-as-fuck system.

adjl posted...

I'm not really interested in how it does work so much as how it should work.

No, the way it SHOULD work is the way that goes against your jackbooted legal-system abuse idea. No system should work the way you've described, and if it does work the way you've described, that's a pretty serious ethical, legal, and moral problem.

adjl posted...

Sex workers have been treated as second-class citizens for as long as sex work has been a thing.

Which is no way justifies your absolutely insane advocation that the legal system be abused in objectively horrifying ways.

adjl posted...

People like Zeus are happy to dismiss cases like this with thinly-veiled misogynistic comments because they don't see anything wrong with it and simply accept it as the status quo. That needs to change, and it's not going to change unless the people demonstrating such flippant attitudes are called out on it and forced to justify their beliefs (and, with any luck, change them after realizing they can't)

No, your fucking stupid, sexist beliefs have to change. If I was criticizing a man, you've give it a free pass. This ONLY comes up when women are criticized. Why do you treat all men as third-class citizens? And why do you defend women on the basis of their gender alone, while proposing absurd abuses of the legal system? Nothing should work like you propose. Full stop. Nothing. So just stop.

---

Its like these people want porn stars to plug themselves into an outlet and charge their batteries out of sight in a closet somewhere instead of living normal lives.

---

Zeus posted...

Criticism doesn't have to specifically artistic

It does to be protected under fair use.

Zeus posted...

although, in a technical sense, this still IS an artistic criticism

No, it's a personal one. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I'm mistaken and the letter did include commentary on her lighting or composition, but I think we both know it instead amounted to "she's an icky sex-haver don't let her be around kids." The complainant was criticizing her personally, not criticizing her work.

Zeus posted...

You're literally suggesting that the legal system be abused to silence critics. That's what you're doing. Just f***ing own it already.

No, I'm suggesting that the legal system be used to prevent people from damaging innocent people's reputations and abilities to participate in their community. At no point have I suggested that people should be unable to critique this woman's work or any other aspect of her life. Just that they shouldn't be able to baselessly paint her as being unfit to work with children. Sex workers should have the same protections against defamation that everyone else enjoys.

Zeus posted...

No, your f***ing stupid, sexist beliefs have to change. If I was criticizing a man, you've give it a free pass.

What makes you think that? Have I previously given a free pass to men being forced out of jobs for being sex workers? I don't recall ever doing that, so if I have, rest assured that it's because I missed the topic, not because I don't think it's equally bad. I likely wouldn't call any of your comments on the matter "misogynistic," in such a case, but that's because you're very unlikely to say things like "if they couldn't tell that she did porn just by looking at her, part of that is on them" in a topic about a dude, not because of any gender bias on my part. Misogyny just doesn't come up very often with male subjects.

To be clear, sex work is sex work, regardless of the parts involved, and I have no intention or desire to tolerate anyone defaming sex workers in any capacity that prevents them from functioning in society as they desire. No, I would not give you a free pass for criticizing a male sex worker and advocating that they be removed from positions. I'd just change up a couple pronouns. You can stop humping your victim complex so frantically.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I doubt it's really defamation either. There's a statement of fact that this woman is a sex worker of some description, followed by an opinion about this fact, that her position within the community is incompatible with her vocation. The person who wrote this letter has every right to express both of those things.

Eh, that's debatable. When the opinion is "this means she's a pervert who's unfit to be around children," I'd say that's baseless enough to be defamatory. The fact of the matter is that she would almost certainly have been able to continue working in this position without issue if not for this person outing her and stating that opinion. If they had a concrete basis for the opinion (such as statistics showing that sex workers are significantly more likely to abuse children or some specific content within her work that suggested pedophilic tendencies), it'd be another story, but without one, there's definitely an argument for defamation there.

That said, being a volunteer position, it's much harder to claim damages unless this subsequently affected her professionally. If anything, it probably actually has drawn attention to her OF (especially where she's definitely attractive enough for this publicity to prompt people to check out her page), so she's probably actually going to profit from it in the long run even without considering the lawsuit against the school. To that end, even if she can win a defamation suit, there probably isn't much point trying except to set legal precedent (which the suit against the school will do equally well).

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

So where that leaves us is with her going after the school directly. Personally I hope she has enough of a case to at least push for a settlement that includes her legal fees and an apology. It's none of the school's business if she poses for erotic photos, and nothing she's done should disqualify her from participating in school related activities with her child.

That, I can agree with.

---

PK_Spam posted...

Its like these people want porn stars to plug themselves into an outlet and charge their batteries out of sight in a closet somewhere instead of living normal lives.

To be fair, that probably describes the most successful relationship many of these critics have ever had. You can't really fault them too much for only speaking in terms of what they know.

---

Oh no. I thought you all wanted people to be shamed, fired and ostracized for irrelevant shit. Congrats. You've made it.

adjl posted...

I'm not really interested in how it does work so much as how it should work. It's a given that she's going to get hosed in court. Sex workers have been treated as second-class citizens for as long as sex work has been a thing. The question is why. People like Zeus are happy to dismiss cases like this with thinly-veiled misogynistic comments because they don't see anything wrong with it and simply accept it as the status quo. That needs to change, and it's not going to change unless the people demonstrating such flippant attitudes are called out on it and forced to justify their beliefs (and, with any luck, change them after realizing they can't).

Because it wouldn't even come close to defamation in the courtroom. Those are the hardest cases for the first amendment.

adjl posted...

there's definitely an argument for defamation there.

There is absolutely a 0% chance.
---

dedbus posted...

Oh no. I thought you all wanted people to be shamed, fired and ostracized for irrelevant shit. Congrats. You've made it.

I really hope you don't think people being fired and ostracized for doing sex work is a new thing. That's a problem that's literally documented in the bible. Attributing that to any modern cultural shifts would be terribly silly.

---

adjl posted...

I really hope you don't think people being fired and ostracized for doing sex work is a new thing. That's a problem that's literally documented in the bible. Attributing that to any modern cultural shifts would be terribly silly.

How did a prostitute get fired from being a prostitute in biblical times?
---

Revelation34 posted...

How did a prostitute get fired from being a prostitute in biblical times?

adjl posted...

and ostracized

---