Michael Pineda Yankees’ Michael Pineda Ejected for Pine Tar Against Red Sox Patrice Bergeron, Zdeno Chara Bruins Take Control of Series with 3-0 Win Over Red Wings Jacoby Ellsbury returns to Fenway Park, this time in a Yankees uniform. Should the Red Sox faithful bring out the boo birds? (The Boston Globe) To Boo or Not to Boo? Ellsbury Returns to Boston with Yankees Jacoby Yankees vs. Red Sox: Round 2 in Boston

Boston Barstool Sports Posts Naked Photos of Tom Brady’s Son

Photo Courtesy of Getty Images

Do you enjoy posting pictures of naked children online? Apparently Boston Barstool Sports does. Earlier Thursday, the site posted a picture of Tom Brady’s child at the beach. He was naked. Oh, and he’s only two years old. That’s not creepy or anything.

And the comment below the photo wasn’t much better:

That’s a big f***ing hog for a 2 year old right? Just swinging low like a boss.  I guess we shouldn’t be surprised though. That’s what MVP QB’s do. They impregnate chicks and give birth to big dicked kids.  Does Peyton Manning have any children?  If he does I bet they got pencil dicks.

Yeah, I’m going to go with “not cool” on this one.

I understand that celebrities and athletes get followed by the paparazzi. And sometimes photographs capture them in unflattering ways. But, Tom Brady and Gisele are both of legal age. If you want to take pictures of them and their rocking bodies, go right ahead. Leave the 2-year-old alone.

This is child pornography at its finest, folks (this is an educated guess). It’s a picture of a baby provocatively holding a large stick with his junk hanging out. If this was a picture of some random kid, the feds would be busting down their doors by now.

Barstool is known for being edgy, but this is crossing a line. Let’s keep it classy guys.

For what it’s worth, El Presidente (David Portnoy) made a new post defending his choice to post the pictures with the questionable commentary.

What do you think?

About Josh Segal

Josh Segal is a professional shock artist and trash talker. He also occasionally writes opinion pieces about the Red Sox, Patriots, Celtics, and their respective leagues at large. Segal is currently a junior at Kenyon College where he plans to double major in drama and political science. Apparently he also writes his own biographies in the third person.

Tags: , , , ,

Discussion

26 comments for “Boston Barstool Sports Posts Naked Photos of Tom Brady’s Son”

  1. The fact that Portnoy doesn’t see anything wrong with this is pretty bizarre. The guy posted naked pictures of a two year old, and then acts shocked when people get upset about it. I don’t think he should be arrested or anything, but he definitely should issue some kind of apology.

    Posted by Fran | August 11, 2011, 10:35 pm
  2. First, this is not child pornography – not even close. If it was, pretty much every parent in the country would get arrested.
    Secondly, if you’re so high and mighty about how bad this is, why would you TAG Brady’s kid’s name in the blog?
    Oh yeah – so when people search for the kid’s name you might pick up some hits for this POS blog.

    Posted by DP | August 11, 2011, 11:01 pm
  3. If a picture of a fully exposed toddler is not child pornography, then what is? Would you be happy if someone took a picture of your naked child and posted it online?

    A blog as recognized as Barstool should be held responsible for what is posted–the good and the bad. When people are considering what blogs they should read, they should keep in mind who posts naked photos of children.

    Am I acting high and mighty? Quite possibly. But regardless of anyone’s opinion on this matter, it is notable news event that deserves to be covered.

    Posted by Josh Segal | August 11, 2011, 11:09 pm
  4. Warrants will be out tomorrow for the billion mothers with pictures of their babiea naked…and commercials will be removed n fined showing babies butts

    Posted by jay | August 11, 2011, 11:34 pm
  5. You are a joke. It was a joke of an article. Obviously there was nothing serious being said in the caption. If you take anything said on barstool serious than you should be the ones targeted for your stupid irrational reactions. He probably saw the picture on google therefore it already being on the Internet. He made a joke glorifying Tom Brady and you all look for any reason to tear the guy apart. You suck.

    Posted by Dorchester | August 11, 2011, 11:58 pm
  6. If you dont want the kids picture getting taken with his dong hanging out then put a bathing suit or diaper on him. You don’t let your kid run around naked in public when you are that famous unless you don’t care about paparazzi taking pictures.

    Posted by Steve | August 12, 2011, 12:03 am
  7. The author is right. The photo is uncalled for.

    Posted by Ken | August 12, 2011, 9:59 am
  8. Steve, really? I mean, I don’t have kids but I have plenty of nieces and newphews, and plenty of times they’re naked in public. I don’t care about the picture being taken. Whatever. The caption is stupid, petulant, and this is an example of terrible judgement on new-age media’s part.

    And I ALWAYS defend new age media.

    Posted by Ryan Hadfield | August 12, 2011, 10:13 am
  9. If you are sooo outraged by the photo, why have a link that takes you right to the photo and the blog that you are critisizing. and for the record, BBS wasn’t the only media outlet who ran the pictures. They were taken by papparazzi and available on the internet for anyone to see. Portnoy wasn’t out there with his long-angle lens hoping for a shot at Brady’s kid naked. He did nothing illegal. If you don’t like BBS, don’t read it, and certainly dont set up a link that takes you right to the horrible site in question.

    Posted by Nicole Lee | August 12, 2011, 10:44 am
  10. Nicole, I guess, it’s just for referenece. And I don’t think EVERYONE is freaking out over the actual picture.

    Babies/Toddlers are naked ALL the time. There was one naked on the decorated Nevermind album by Nirvana. People are sort of desensitized to that.

    BUT the issue is in terms of the caption. It’s repulsive.

    Posted by Ryan Hadfield | August 12, 2011, 11:17 am
  11. @nicole

    If you don’t think having explicit pictures of a two year old is possession of child pornography, then what does qualify, in your opinion?

    I understand barstool is an immensely popular blog, but that doesn’t mean they are infallible. Nothing against them, it was just poor judgment.

    Furthermore, I would suggest you not blindly defend everything they post…try to be a tad more objective. To not have the capacity to understand why people could be offended by this is absolutely stupefying.

    If someone took/posted a picture of your son/daughter/etc. and commented on his/her genitalia, you would be outraged.

    To elaborate on what you said, if you don’t like reading alternative viewpoints, “then don’t read it”.

    Posted by Josh Segal | August 12, 2011, 11:26 am
  12. Umm really people? I read the blog, read the article, laughed and didn’t think a thing about it. Its a baby on the beach. Everyone who takes serious offense to that are the wackjobs and no lifes that have nothing better to do but patronize other people in the hopes of making themselves look good.

    Posted by Mark Buchanon | August 12, 2011, 12:40 pm
  13. I don’t have any problem with the photo. But then again, I’m not a perv. I do know one thing though, as the Mom of 4, I’d keep kids parts covered. For girls, who wants sand in you know where, and for the boys, who wants to watch them fall and skin their you know what. This is why you put flip flops on when you leave the beach, to protect your parts!

    Posted by Jenny | August 12, 2011, 12:51 pm
  14. Well, as the mother of a 6 year old, if I don’t want pictures of my child on the internet naked, then I put clothes on her when I’m in public with her, especially if I know that I am being followed by a photographer. 2nd, I don’t “blindly” defend everything BBS posts. I think it is hypocritical for the same people who read his blog daily and laugh at the expense of mentally handicapped, drool over co-eds, & play games called “guess that ass” are all the sudden outraged over his “comments”.

    In one post you state that the picture is child porn, then you state that it’s not the picture, its the comments. If it is the picture you’re so outraged by, then by all means, that’s your opinion, but don’t just go after Barstool. Go after every news outlet who published the photos. Go after the photographer who took and posted the photos to be picked up and published. You yourself link not only to the photo’s, but the blog in question. And, yes, I will be taking my own advice, and not reading this anymore.

    Posted by Nicole Lee | August 12, 2011, 1:56 pm
  15. I don’t think the picture was offensive, I think the caption was…

    Let’s be real guys. You are mothers, yes, but you’re also not TB or his supermodel wife. So “I don’t want pictures of a child on the Internet” is kind of a specious arguement. I don’t think they do either.

    But remember this is the same guy who was made fun of for THE WAY HE WENT DOWN A WATERSLIDE. It was a simple candid picture which caught him looking goofy.Yet that’s the exposure they deal with on a day to day basis. Are you and your kids getting photographed at Water Whiz?

    The picture? Whatever. I don’t see the HUGE outcry.The caption describing a babies genitals? Uh, yeah, that’s not exactly colloquial conversation.

    Posted by Ryan Hadfield | August 12, 2011, 2:18 pm
  16. YOU ARE ABSOLUTLY RIGHT. CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. PORTNOY YOU’RE A REAL HERO PICKING ON A KID.

    Posted by AP MECH | August 12, 2011, 2:29 pm
  17. Yes this is child pornography.
    Parents who photograph their own children naked do not (usually) do so in an attempt to exploit their child’s genitalia, or post those photos on the internet.
    Portnoy crossed the line from a legal standpoint by specifically focusing on the child’s genitalia with his salacious comments.
    The Nirvana album is exempt because the child is not identified and right or wrong most art is exempt from pornography laws.
    As for those who say if you don’t want strangers commenting on your childs genitalia put a diaper on him – I say get into 2011. Would you tell a rape victim they should have been dressed more modestly when they were attacked?

    Posted by R | August 12, 2011, 2:33 pm
  18. My feeling is that if you want to follow or make fun of a celebrity, fine. But leave the kids alone. They have no say in how famous their parents are they can’t defend themselves.

    His son is 2 years old. The picture of him naked is pornography. Maybe not graphic, but it is pornography. No parent should want a naked picture of their infant on the internet. (or anywhere, for that matter) And the comments, more than anything, are deplorable. What normal person talks about how big a two year old’s penis is? That, my friends, is perverted.

    Posted by Matt | August 12, 2011, 2:58 pm
  19. AHHHH!!!! Naked Baby!!! Cancel Christmas!!!

    Posted by Mark Buchanon | August 12, 2011, 6:10 pm
  20. While the picture in and of itself isn’t creepy (let’s keep in mind the millions of pictures of babies in bathtubs that the proud parents post on Facebook), that caption is terrifying. “MAN, LOOKIT THIS TWO-YEAR-OLD’S JUNK, EH?” Come on, grow up. That sounds like a comment a functioning alcoholic granddad is allowed to make, but not a blog (even if it is a sports blog).

    Posted by Wes Rosen | August 12, 2011, 9:10 pm
  21. While this photo may not necessarily be child pornography in the sense that it isn’t innately explicit, that doesn’t mean it should be acceptable to post it on a blog with a suggestive caption. There seems to be a definite lack of judgement on the part of Barstool and I’m not really sure how anybody on here can be supportive of exploiting a child like that just for walking naked on a beach. At least by general standards of society, a two year old hanging out naked on a beach is acceptable, I don’t think the same can be said for people whipping out cameras and taking pictures of them and other adults proceeding to post those pictures with inappropriate captions to make a profit off of it.

    Posted by Sadie | August 12, 2011, 9:32 pm
  22. This is pathetic all the bitches whining about this sh*t, there are naked pictures of me as a f**king baby all over the place, I couldn’t give less of a sh*t about this bullsh*t, f**k that and VIVA LA STOOL

    Posted by Peter | August 15, 2011, 12:24 am
  23. What a foul display of how rude and discuting reporters can be. Jerk.

    Posted by chrystal36 | August 15, 2011, 10:17 am
  24. I think the author’s link to someone else’s deplorable comments just to get hits is deplorable.

    “Do you enjoy posting pictures of naked children online? Apparently Boston Barstool Sports does.” Boston Barstool Sports DID NOT post the pictures someone else did. And if you claim that by adding a link to the blog that pulls up the pic counts, then you ALSO posted pictures of naked children.

    Is what barstool did childish? Yep, sure is. But so is most everything else there. I happen to be a grown adult with three little ones. I find the site humorous, and am not offended by the comments. They are a joke.

    In addition, what IS offensive is all these people that think it’s OK to have their kids running around nude at public beaches. Hey, there is a reason that they make swim diapers. And the most important is health reasons. I don’t need to be stepping in poop because you were too cheap to put a diaper on your kid. I don’t ever let my kids run naked in public. Not only do people not need to see their privates, they don’t need to have them peeing and pooping all over the place.

    Posted by Max | August 15, 2011, 2:36 pm
  25. Hey Max, despite being smug and standoffish, you’re overconfident statements display severely flawed logic.

    It’s common practice to link to articles/twitter posts/etc. that are being referred to in blog posts. Yeah, he links them to their page…but it’s so they can be held accountable for what they posted. You also neglect the fact that he linked to Portnoy’s apology…forgot to mention that, didn’t you.

    And holding posting a link against them makes no sense, pal. If you love barstool so much, why do you care if they link to its site? Other than to try to sound big and tough, you don’t care.

    Other than being a barstool troll, like half the people who have commented, you clearly have no vested interest in other opinions. People have different viewpoints, you can either look at issue from another perspective (and learn and grow as a person) or be a belligerent douche.

    The only shit that needs to be cleaned up is the pile of it between your ears.

    Posted by Rod | August 15, 2011, 3:26 pm
  26. Rod – Thank you.

    Max – It’s common practice to link to what we’re referring to…so it gives what we’re saying some context. And yes, we may have picked up some extra hits for covering this – but this was a huge story when it happened. We wouldn’t be doing our job if we ignored it.

    Posted by KC Downey | August 15, 2011, 5:56 pm

Post a comment