David Portnoy, who runs the website BarstoolSports.com, came under fire for posting images of Patriots QB Tom Brady’s son in the nude.
The 20-month-year-old boy was with mom Gisele Bundchen at a beach in Costa Rica when photos were snapped of the pair.
Those photos were brought to the attention of Portnoy via a link sent to him in an e-mail, and he then posted the images on his web site.
Portnoy initially defended his right to post the images but has since removed them after Massachusetts state police paid him a visit.
The outrage many have expressed calls into question whether Portnoy was merely exercising free speech or if he crossed the line by posting photos of a naked child.
While I don’t believe he acted with the intent to cause harm, Portnoy did display an apparent lack of good taste in posting the photos despite his claims to the contrary.
In defending his position, Portnoy claims that he had no intention of the post going viral, but that’s bullshit. In fact, his assertion is insulting.
Every web site publisher making the decision to post images of that nature is doing so with the intent of generating a ton of traffic.
Portnoy also says that the post wasn’t about the child, but rather it was about Brady. If that were the case, he could have edited the photos and included an image of Brady, but he did neither.
He further attempts to justify his decision by saying that the images were not of a sexual nature. “I said he had a big ‘howitzer.’ So that’s not sexual. If you’re making a connection to that being sexual then I would look into the mirror is what I would say; because it’s not sexual at all,” said Portnoy.
If Portnoy doesn’t believe that referencing to the male genitalia as a howitzer isn’t sexual, then he must think the rest of us are stupid.
To give you an idea of how bad things have gotten for Portnoy, he couldn’t even get Howard Stern to support him.
Stern told his listeners on his Sirius XM radio show Tuesday that the photos were “kind of seedy.”
“I have three daughters and I gotta tell you, Dave, I would never post a picture of a child and comment on their genitals, and I’m known for outrageous commentary,” Stern said.
Portnoy has expressed frustration that he agreed to remove the photos from his site and believes he “sold out” in doing so.
You won’t find a more staunch supporter of the First Amendment than me, and on a personal level I could generally care less what Portnoy posts on his web site.
But there are certain lines that shouldn’t be crossed, and posting images of a naked child most certainly falls under those guidelines.
Furthermore, in trying to justify his position Portnoy offers up several rationalizations that don’t come close to passing the smell test.
Had he simply said that he made a mistake and removed the photos from his site, that would have brought the matter to a swift resolution.
But fighting it the way he did only makes him look as if he wanted to keep the story in the public eye as long as he could to generate more page views.
This isn’t in the same context as posting images of half-naked chicks who are of age and have signed consent forms. Young women who pose scantily clad for photographers are fully aware that those images are going to be made public.
But in this case, Brady’s son had no say in whether the photos could be published and Portnoy’s poor judgement to post the images on his site doesn’t automatically afford him First Amendment protections.
I would stand by Portnoy’s side if I believed he had a legitimate First Amendment claim, but even our most basic right under the Constitution doesn’t allow for exploitation, and regardless what he may think, Portnoy exploited this situation for all that it was worth.
