whomper Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Naked pics of Tom Brady's son spark police visit Posted on: August 16, 2011 2:17 pm Last week, some pictures of Gisele Bundchen (wife of Patriots quarterback Tom Brady) walking on the beach made the rounds on the Internet. They were only different from "normal pictures of Gisele making the rounds on the Internet" in that they featured some naked pictures of Brady and Bundchen's 20-month-old son. Yeah, I feel creepy writing that sentence, which is kind of why we didn't post them. Barstool Sports did post them, though, and caused quite a stir. Enough of a stir, in fact, that the Massachusetts Attorney General sent some detectives to the home of Barstool founder David Portnoy. "We asked Mr. Portnoy to remove the postings and appreciate that he voluntarily chose to do so," a spokesman for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said, via The Smoking Gun. Now, TSG speculates that the Patriots may have had a hand in suppressing the photo. And perhaps that's true. Or maybe it was just Brady? Either way it's fine, since it's a naked infant on the Internet. And the vague scene that's described with respect to the detectives showing up is straight out of a terrible Will Smith movie: they apparently rolled up to Portnoy's office on Friday afternoon and "convinced" him to remove the pictures. The likely reality? They mentioned that, as of right now, there wasn't any need to investigate anything relating to child pornography ... but it could happen. And with that staring him down, Portnoy quickly yanked the photos. Which is good, since there's no reason for anyone's kid to be featured naked on the Internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Now, I understand the invasion of privacy etc etc issue here. But "child pornography"? Really? Best clean out your hard drives of all nekkid baby pictures, parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Even if YOU don't consider it pornography...someone else is likely to use it for that purpose, sad to say. Like Rex Ryan and shoe ads, you know? I saw the pics and they were cute, naked baby on the beach type pics. Still, they shouldn't have been posted on the internet. Family photo album, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 They were only different from "normal pictures of Gisele making the rounds on the Internet" in that they featured some naked pictures of Brady and Bundchen's 20-month-old son. Wait a minute... Maybe I'm misunderstanding here. Was Brady himself naked in the photos? That, I could see as a problem. If it was just the toddler, though, it's really not a big deal (that photos were taken). Either way, posting them on the internet is just wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Even if YOU don't consider it pornography...someone else is likely to use it for that purpose, sad to say. Like Rex Ryan and shoe ads, you know? Well, if we're using THAT standard, just about any picture of a kid would qualify as pornography. Still, they shouldn't have been posted on the internet. I'm definitely not disputing that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stethant Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 If it was just the toddler, though, it's really not a big deal (that photos were taken). The problem here is that the toddler picture on the website included a caption (trying to be funny) referencing the size of the toddler's genitalia. It's pretty hard to see, even as a joke, how anyone of us would tolerate a picture like that of our kid on the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Did I wander into the tailgate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 The webiste in question is losing all of his advertisers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Wife took a photo of our two kids (4yrs and 1yr) leaning over and looking into the tub with their butts showing. She was going to put it on Facebook, I told her even though we thought it was cute, others might not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Wife took a photo of our two kids (4yrs and 1yr) leaning over and looking into the tub with their butts showing. She was going to put it on Facebook, I told her even though we thought it was cute, others might not. OF COURSE it's cute. But this is America, and we must strive to not offend the tender sensibilities of the weenies on the PC left or the religious right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bankerboy Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 OF COURSE it's cute. But this is America, and we must strive to not offend the tender sensibilities of the weenies on the PC left or the religious right. Sad but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 The webiste in question is losing all of his advertisers. thats pretty funny if its true used to frequent that site....but the guy has changed up the layout and formats too much and i got sick of it....was always good for a laugh....but portnoy could be a real dickhead to people/emailers who would ask if they could remove their photo from the website...he would publically taunt and insult them right on his site....he would post email exchanges and everything....he sort of got off on it.......would be pretty funny and ironic to see his website lose its advertisers and go in the SHAM WOW!ter from this....posting naked baby pics of a child that is the son of a man he worships Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) OF COURSE it's cute. But this is America, and we must strive to not offend the tender sensibilities of the weenies on the PC left or the religious right. Is that you BeeR? Ummm, posting pics of your kids up to facebook for your "friends" to see is not even in the same ballpark as a stranger posting pics with your kid's weiner out for the whole world, including pedophiles, to see... Not really sure how you can even make it into a broader argument. It was a cheapshot controversy piece to try to get ratings by exploiting an exposed pic of a "famous" child, an extremely scummy ploy to draw attention... But yes, I guess I'm just being an easily-offendible PC lib or religious nutjob ... Please, do continue on about how the right to show the world Brady's kid's weiner is what makes America great. Edited August 17, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Is that you BeeR? Ummm, posting pics of your kids up to facebook for your "friends" to see is not even in the same ballpark as a stranger posting pics with your kid's weiner out for the whole world, including pedophiles, to see... Not really sure how you can even make it into a broader argument. It was a cheapshot controversy piece to try to get ratings by exploiting an exposed pic of a "famous" child, an extremely scummy ploy to draw attention... But yes, I guess I'm just being an easily-offendible PC lib or religious nutjob ... Please, do continue on about how the right to show the world Brady's kid's weiner is what makes America great. Hmmm, you are misreading my posts, methinks. My comment about Facebook stuff was strictly referring to twiley's wife's reasoning for not posting his kids' pic up - some people will get offended about ANYTHING, no matter how innocent it is. It breaks down to a few separate issues: - should the website have posted pics of the Bradys on their vacation, with or without Brady Jr's johnson out? NO. - should the website have made ANY sort of reference to Brady Jrs unit? GOOD LORD, NO. - should we be throwing around the terms "child pornography" for something that, despite the circumstances of its publication, is what amounts to a fairly innocent and common family picture? HELL NO. So the website owner is a piece of trash. I definitely have no dispute with that stance. But the 3rd question really is worrying when you start thinking about what it could mean in a larger sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.