In her latest Boston Globe column, the estimable Joan Vennochi posits this:

THE FUROR over the photograph of Tom Brady’s nude son is all about celebrity, not real outrage over child pornography.

For all you splendid readers who’ve been on a Pacific island (or Martha’s Vineyard) recently, the relentlessly juvenile local media outfit Barstool Sports last week posted on its website “[a] picture of 20-month-old Benjamin Brady playing on a beach in Costa Rica without any clothes.”

That led to:

1) Widespread outrage

2) Kneejerk defiance by Barstool Sportstool David Portnoy

3) Widespreader outrage

4) A (likely civil-rights-violating) visit to Mr. Portnoy’s home by the state police, compliments of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley

5) The removal of the photo from the website by Mr. Portnoy

Vennochi quotes local civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate to the effect that Portnoy would likely be subject to criminal prosecution for child pornography.

But, Vennochi writes:

It would not have been in the child’s interest, [Silverglate] argues, to be part of a criminal prosecution destined to turn into a circus because of his famous parents. Win or lose, the case would establish “the Brady test’’ for what constitutes child pornography – a heavy burden for any child, he said.

But, would any child’s sensibilities be factored into such a decision? Or just Tom Brady’s child?

Good question.

Here’s another one:

Why was Benjamin Brady running around in the altogether in the first place? His mother, supermodel Gisele Bundchen, knows she’s being stalked by paparazzi six ways from Sunday. Why would she create a situation where they could do their worst?

David Portnoy’s judgment is clearly flawed. But isn’t Gisele Bundchen’s as well?