Hey, there! Log in / Register
Staties vs. Barstool Sports, blogger vs. old-media blowhard
By adamg on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 7:27pm
A couple of Staties visited David Portnoy of Barstool Sports and suggested it might be best for all concerned if he took down the nekkid photos of the Brady kid, if you know what they mean, and they think you do, so he did. At least, for today.
Meanwhile, Glenn Ordway, apparently tired of driving more people to Portnoy's site through his anti-Barstool radiothon, turned his sputtering mike and frothing listeners on Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch for daring to suggest Ordway just shut up already about the whole thing. Allen returns fire today:
Had WEEI just condemned and moved on, would this story have gotten as much attention as it did? While plenty of other media outlets did pick up on the story, there is no doubt that WEEI's incessant banging of the drum increased the visibility of the story.
I heard you state that the extended discussion of the topic had nothing to do with ratings. That is a boldface lie. Everything done at WEEI is for ratings. Are you claiming that this was some sort of selfless public service you were performing here?
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
What law did they cite?
Oh, I forgot. Cops aren't lawyers and can't be expected to know the law (which was in a cited discussion by lawyers in the earlier thread - no sexualization means no harm no foul).
Seriously - by making a big deal over young naked kids, we are making something natural and innocent into something lurid and prurient.
Again for slowpokes like ret-Ordway: it isn't the pictures that are the problem. The captions are the problem.
No its the pictures that are
No its the pictures that are the problem. And the issue is privacy rights. All of us regardless of age have a right to privacy, especially if we are not public personalities ( Or maybe you maintain that children haven't a right to privacy). Unfortunately, it is impossible , for a two year old to be a plaintiff in a court case. And parents are reluctant to act for the child because doing so will involve the child in legal activities the child is incapable of understanding and may even find frightening. Therefore, knowing that the law in effect provides diminished protection for children, the media can violate the rights to privacy of a child whereas they would not dare to do the exact same thing to someone old enough to take them to court.
And it has nothing to do with prudishness; prudes and non-prudes are both entitled to equal protection of the law.
None of which has to do with staties
Everything you're complaining about is a civil matter. The cops have absolutely no need to be involved here.
Privacy rights
Please specify exactly what my privacy rights are. Which part of the US or Massachusetts Constitutions guarantee these rights? Thanks!
(IANAL)
Did you Say PICTURES?
How about this SEXUALIZED picture of a likely underage model?
This image - and many more of very clearly underage (or meant to look underage) models in various states of undress and sexualized poses frequently grace the exterior of every Abecrombie and Fitch outlet in the state.
Sorry, but a nekked little wee one is NOT SEXUAL. Provocatively posed teens plastered across a Quincy Market storefront should be a much higher priority for any enforcement.
What about consent?
Chances are that the models of which you speak are in fact 18, and it is certain that they have consented to the exhibition. Did either the child or his parents consent to the photography and the subsequent use of the photo? Sexualized or not, would you like a candid, nekkid photo of yourself or your children taken without your consent and then posted on the Internet? And would that be merely a civil matter?
3rd Floor, Morality Hall.
State Decency Police, obv.
Portnoy could absolutely be arrested
SwirlyGrrl: Actually, many police officers are lawyers and one doesn't graduate the academy without a command of criminal and constitutional law, but that's beside the point in this case because according to the Boston Globe, troopers were sent to Portnoy's home by A.G. Coakley, who is um, a lawyer.
As for the Lawyer's Weekly discussion, it's crystal clear that Portnoy could be lawfully arrested for dissemination of child pornography. Recall from the Skip Gates case that to make an arrest, the police need not concern themselves with the likelihood of winning a conviction, they merely need probable cause which is more than mere suspicion but less than evidence to justify a conviction. If, as Lawyer's Weekly says, a prosecutor "could certainly argue that the photo, in conjunction with Portnoy’s comments, are enough to support the charge" it's a given that probable cause, a much lower standard, exists for the arrest. Ultimately, removal, at the urging of State Police, of the offensive photo and comments achieved the same goal. Strong work by the A.G. and the troopers involved.
----
From Lawyer's Weekly:
"Q. So why wouldn’t the photograph meet that definition?
A. A prosecutor could certainly argue that the photo, in conjunction with Portnoy’s comments, are enough to support the charge, but any defense lawyer worth his weight would argue that his client’s intent was not for sexual gratification, but rather to publish information about Brady and his wife, who are both public figures. If such a defense were raised, it’s hard to fathom how a prosecutor would succeed in proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
So cops can just harass people for anything?
Nice. Real nice. And here I thought you tinfoil hat partiers fear a police state.
Nekked littlies != Sexual. Get over your Banned in Boston mentality. I'd bet all of Brasil is laughing at us (they clothe their toddlers on the Beach!!! Crazy!)
The baby photo is not sexual - unless you get turned on by it and that ain't Portnoy's problem (complaint?). Coakley should go after Abecrombe and Fitch if she wants to target displays of sexualized underage photography.
Hmmm ... do they contribute to her campaign fund?
Good to know that the fiscal
Good to know that the fiscal situation of the AG's office and State Police are such that we have the resources to allocate State Police and AG hours to protecting celebrity's from the Paparazzi.
I'm fuzzy on the rules....
Aside from the obvious that all have already stated ad nauseam... I'm not sure I understand how a blogger, if this is the case, is allowed to get away with copying and pasting other photographers work in the first place without purchasing it. Maybe you bloggers out there can explain. In other words, did Mr. Portnoy purchase the photo or does he ever purchase content and if not, can the photo agency who took this photo go after him for "soiling" their name in all this?
If he didn't buy rights ...
Which I suspect he didn't, given the cease and desist letter he initially complied with, I suspect he'd argue "fair use." I kind of doubt that would apply to the images he was putting on T-shirts for sale, though.
Note that the cease and desist ...
... was all about Giselle's behind ... not about the baby.
No Wee-wees!
I found the Globe's coverage of this amusing as this is the same paper that dedicates their lame-ass gossip section "Names" or "What are Tom-n-Giselle Up To Today?"page to the same couple. They have completely fetishized these people into inhuman cardboard cutouts, and I seriously doubt that has been done without the assistance of the publicists for the two of them.
So while Portnoy is a disingenuous slob ("I had no intention of this going viral") and posting photos of someone else's kid nude along with a bunch of Beavis and Butthead-grade comments (regardless of how frat-boy fawning they may be towards Brady) and close up shots of the kid's mom's ass is completely sleazy and lacking any class, having the State Police come to your door and ask you to take down something on your web site is a bit sketchy too. The photo itself is not offensive. The context he put it in would piss me off (were it my kid) and the fact that some paparazzi sneaked a photo of my naked kid on a beach (was it a public or private beach?) would probably piss me off more. Of course if I made my living off of whoring my image all over the damned place, I guess I'd sort of just have to deal with the unwanted attention too (which is what it seems Brady is doing).
If I were a betting man...
...I'd bet that Portnoy's fandom outstrips his attention-whoring. If Tom Brady simply directly called Portnoy and said, "Hi, I know you're a fan and you didn't mean anything by it, but I'd really appreciate it more if you just took down my son's picture." If I were a betting man, I'd bet that Portnoy would take it down out of deference to Brady's polite request.
Of course, Brady hasn't asked (as far as we all know...and I'm sure if he had, Portnoy would post to tell us all about how he'd gotten to talk to Tom Brady). So maybe Tom doesn't even care that this guy has gotten a hold of the picture.