« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
02/21/2008
Former 'Brother' seeks windfall for daughter
For the five of you who watched "Big Brother" back in the early days: Do any of you remember Kent from the second season? This guy:
He was best known during his short stint on the show for striking up an unlikely friendship with gay housemate Bunky, despite his obvious hang ups about gay people. However, whereas he apparently got over any issues about living with a gay dude, Kent's not so fond of videos of gay dudes engaged in sex being sent to his 12-year old daughter. In fact, he's so NOT fond of that concept, that he's seeking $4 million in damages from Specialty Publications because the company allegedly sent a gay porn DVD and an ad for a gay adult magazine to his child by mistake. 365Gay has more:
Dad Seeks $4M After Daughter Sees Gay Porn [365]
Geez, the price tag for mistaken exposure to gay porn has really gone up! Seriously -- 4 million?!? What's Kent want to do, buy her new eyeballs?!
It remains to be seen if receiving the package (of dudes receiving the package) will grant Kent the big prize that his "Big Brother" was never able to give. If not, he can always go on "Survivor: Unintended Mail Edition."
**RELATED: See Kent & Bunky in action:
BB Memory #60 - Bunky and Kent [YouTube]
Your thoughts
If he can handle Bunky's back hair, I can't imagine anything in the flier that would have disturbed him.
$4 million is a little over the top. Seeing another persons body without clothes might be something you try to shelter your children from, but not something that would cause "pain". I haven't seen any mailers for years, but the last time I did, there was another envelope inside the outer envelope that explained that grown up stuff was inside and you shouldn't open it if you're under the legal age. I'm pretty sure his 12 year old knows how to read.
Posted by: Robguy | Feb 21, 2008 11:48:09 PM
The scarey thing is that he has a good chance of winning. The courts in the US can soemtimes be rediculously overprotective of children - recall the case of teacher Julie Amero, who was convicted on four counts of 'risk of injury to a minor' because some pupils accidentially saw pornographic pop-up ads on a computer during a lesson? If a court ruled that accidentially letting children see porn for a few seconds is a crime great enough to get jail time and a lifetime entry on the sex offenders register (Meaning she can never work as a teacher again), I find it quite plausable that another court might rule that accidentially exposing a pupil to a pornographic advertisment is so damaging they deserve £4million in compensation.
In another line of thought... I am quite sure that within a few hours I will read a right-wing blog claiming that this is proof that gays are all porn-addicted and dont care who they harm.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | Feb 22, 2008 5:00:44 AM
To tell the truth, I don't think he is THAT out of line. AS a consumer of this product I obviously don't mind it being around but, let's face it. It's one of those things you have to be careful about. We are not talking about highlight magazine here. I see it as the same thing as if someone had given his daughter a pack of cigarettes or a 5th of gin. Some things are just not appropriate. Is he overreacting, probably yes. That is the province of parents where their children are concerned.
Posted by: MIke | Feb 22, 2008 8:18:59 AM
I wouldn't want my kids (if I had any) to be exposed to porn, either. However, I think that trying to claim such exposure has caused $4 million dollars in "damages" is ludicrous.
Posted by: Jarred | Feb 22, 2008 9:39:43 AM
No, I don't think anyone wants their kid exposed to porn. However, there are so many variables that make this a frivolous case. And yes, the sought after sum is LUDICROUS!
Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 22, 2008 9:43:20 AM
comments powered by Disqus
