Glenn Ordway issues fatwa against Barstool Sports over baby Brady nudie pic

By adamg on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:04pm

David Portnoy at Barstool Sports discusses how Glenn Ordway tries to get me murdered (literally) over Brady Babygate.

The page at the center of it all (contains photo of naked kid).

When Ordway went after Universal Hub - no calls to murder, though.

Topics:

Free tagging:

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Ordway's a blowhard. But I

By Anon on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:03pm.

Ordway's a blowhard. But I haven't got the slightest shred of sympathy for David Portnoy. This is how he makes his living. He knew what he was doing when he posted that photo. If he's going to sink to that level for pageviews, he'd better be prepared to live with the consequences.

When Ordway went after you, it was because you raised concerns about an objectionable comment made by his friend. That was bullying, pure and simple. He had no real defense of Maxwell; he was just rallying to the support of a crony.

This is a little different. What Portnoy did was genuinely objectionable - I dare anyone to find journalistic value or a compelling public interest in the photos he posted. A little kid, for crying out loud. I don't want Ordway - or his listeners - taking matters into their own hands. But Portnoy deserves every bit of scorn he's receiving. Just because Ordway is an over-the-top demagogue on the subject doesn't mean he's wrong.

Nirvana

By nightmoves on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:50pm.

Nevermind
IMAGE(http://delaorden.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/nirvana_nevermind_cover.jpg?w=720&h=720)

So what you're saying is

By Smells like Big Show Spirit... on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 4:51am.

Ordway's little group has ALWAYS been? And always will until the end?

Generally speaking, you

By anon on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 5:06pm.

Generally speaking, you shouldn't publish nude pictures of someone's elses kids. Plus i think children also have a right to privacy. If UHubters ,who are parents, want to make news and strike a blow for freedom of the press by publishing nude pics of their own kids on the net, well i'd still think that's more than a little strange, but at least they have a relationship with the child.

Portnoy drafted

By Patrick OMalley on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 6:52pm.

David Portnoy was just drafted in the 1st round to be a Catholic priest.

Culture Shock

By SwirlyGrrl on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:12pm.

This kid was not cloned off of Tom Brady - his mother hails from a culture where the human body is not a shameful thing, and putting a swimsuit on a small child would be somewhat odd. It is a good bet that his California daddy doesn't find publishing a pic of a nekked kid to be any big deal - certainly not a shameful one!

I was at a west coast US beach last weekend where numerous kids up the age of 5 or 6 were being peeled out of swimsuits and rash guards in the public shower area and hosed off nude. Nobody blinked.

While the captioning was sensationally tasteless, Ordway represents highly local attitudes with his puritanical interpretation of the nudity of the photos as being shameful, not any objective statistically valid concern for child welfare.

Focusing on the photos is wrong, as there is nothing wrong with taking them or publishing them. Human bodies, people! We all have them! The sexist and sexualizing captions are the problem - but that's not the focus of the objections here and elsewhere. Its all "OMFG pictures of nekked kids or kids in swimsuits are bad bad bad". Not "sexism and the sexualizing of children is bad". Of course, given Ordway's defense of Maxwell's sexist bullcarp in the past, he probably wouldn't know from sexism if it bit him on the howlitzer.

Consider as well that these same "body shame" attitudes led to kids feeling so shameful about being touched inappropriately by people trusted to work with youth that they either said nothing, or were told to say nothing.

Ever hear the maybe-urban-legend

By Dan Farnkoff on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 11:31pm.

about parents being charged with possession of child porn for developing photos of their own bathing toddlers? If such charges can be, or have in fact been brought in such situations, I find it a little odd that Portnoy, who disseminated a photo of someone else's kid, could somehow be on safer ground than said parents. Who took the photo, anyway?

Ever hear of Anne Geddes?

By SwirlyGrrl on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:03am.

Her photos of other people's naked kids are sold at Hallmark stores.

The only incident of "parents arrested for naked photos" that I could find was the only one I remembered: a woman in Cambridge, MA in 1994 who was prosecuted for taking photos of her son, with one where he was peeing in the yard. Of course, there were no actual charges filed for the naked photos - only charges stemming from the police confronting her at the photo lab, threatening to take her child and, then, when she reacted as one might expect to such threats, smashing her head into a doorway and choking her while in cuffs in a back room to "calm her down". http://users.rcn.com/kyp/angeli.html

They couldn't get charges for any actual nudity issues with the kid because she broke no actual laws there. Interesting, eh? Never mind that at the same time in the 1990s, there were multiple pederasts operating out of the Archdiocese, whose activities were being covered up by senior clergy.

Again, hysteria and body shame add up to "must be true", bad mother, etc. and no actual charges or crime, while real crimes against children were not being policed.

Wow, what a messed-up story.

By Dan Farnkoff on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:16am.

Thanks for researching that.

So many layers of stupidity

By John-W on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:23am.

This is tough to take a side on this one here.

Portnoy is a pig who is sometimes amusing, but still "bar stool" sums up pretty well his site. It's shit that you would say at a bar after drinking one drink too many.

At the same time I don't think he's a pedophile and I don't think fatwas being called out on him by an equally asshatic media whore are right.

But still any person with a modicum of sense might not put that photo within the frat-guy sexist context of "look at that guy's hog and look at his mom's ass! I'd buy that for a dollar!" It's just not two great tastes that go great together. Sexual comments and pictures (Giselle's ass) right next to what is essentially a sweet looking picture of a cute kid who happens to be naked is just not a wise combination to put out there.

And why is that? Because our society is so hung up about nudity, body image and now pedophilia. That last one isn't so much a hang up as it is now a pathological obsession that has us questioning any male that shows the slightest interest in or affection towards children (that's already been mentioned on this blog) and coping with the very real issue of decades of institutional sexual abuse by the Catholic Church (among other trusted institutions - YMCA, bible schools, teachers etc.).

I don't know if our twisted attitudes towards sexuality and towards children (and the combo of the both) are getting worse because of the Internet and the übermedia all around us or if all that communications and technology has just uncovered something that has always been around. But I really am sick to death of it.