The cry of “Won’t somebody think of the children?” while the faux outrage machine churns is getting old, but here we are. The pearl-clutchers of Florida scored a point in the latest battle against freedom of expression by barring a Florida mother from volunteering at her kid’s school. Why? Because she’s a content creator on OnlyFans.
Victoria Triece was happily giving her time for free to the betterment of her child’s school when another parent anonymously emailed explicit images from her OnlyFans account to the principal. The result? Triece got the boot, and a court case landed exactly as you’d expect in Florida. But here’s the question—who was snooping around her content in the first place? Why aren’t they getting the boot for clearly being on a mission to find the very content they now claim to be alarmed by?
This anonymous parent ensured that Victoria Triece was banned from volunteering at school under the guise of “protecting the children” from her explicit content. But considering that she was volunteering at her child’s school, no explicit images were being shared there. If you don’t want your child to see the content Triece shares with her subscribers on OnlyFans, maybe you should monitor their online activity instead of policing a grown woman’s career. The images weren’t being advertised at school, nor was Triece soliciting subscribers when she was present for school activities. The fact that this even came up in the first place is a reach. The kids didn’t find the images—the adults did. So what does that say about the real reason Triece was banned?
To access content on OnlyFans, you have to subscribe to a creator’s page. That means someone had to actively track down Triece’s OnlyFans, pay to access it, and then submit the images to the school. But sure, she’s the real problem. Why isn’t the school district questioning the person who went digging through another mom’s nudes just to ensure she was banned? “Protect the children” is doing a lot of heavy lifting—and fumbling—here. Banning Triece from volunteering had little to do with protecting young minds and everything to do with punishing a woman for daring to profit off her own body. It may be 2025, but society still cannot stand it when a woman flips the script—turning objectification into a paycheck rather than something to be ashamed of.
Are these not grown adults? Why are they acting like high school mean girls? This is the digital version of whispering behind the bleachers about “what she does after school.” It’s not a good look. Triece’s work had nothing to do with her ability to volunteer, and if the school can ban her simply because they don’t like her perfectly legal career, what’s next? The court didn’t side with Triece, nor did it agree that her privacy was violated when her OnlyFans images were sent to the principal to ensure she was removed. This sets a troubling precedent for privacy rights—or rather, the lack thereof.
The court ruling against Triece feels more like a ruling against common sense. What happened to “it takes a village”? Apparently, if “the village” doesn’t approve of how you legally make a living (while paying taxes that help fund said village—schools included), then you’re on your own. At the heart of this brouhaha is the reality that some parents need to grow up. Instead of playing morality police, they should focus on parenting their own child. If you’re more worried about a mom’s OnlyFans page than your own child’s internet activity, then maybe it’s not the mom with the OnlyFans who needs to reevaluate her life choices.
