(Photo: Facebook)
Austin, Minnesota — February 6, 2025
This opinion column is based on sworn testimony, admitted court exhibits, and the author’s interpretation of the public record. Allegations described were not adjudicated unless expressly stated.
Some allegations are so serious that silence itself becomes the story.
That is the case with claims raised under oath involving Noah Kinney, a co-owner of Cannalids, and the conduct of his business partner, former Mower County Commissioner Anthony Samuel Bennett — allegations that entered the public record and were never answered.
Not denied.
Not examined.
Not resolved.
Allegations too serious to dismiss
During sworn testimony, the plaintiff alleged that Kinney admitted to recording and uploading a sexually explicit video involving a minor to Pornhub.
According to that testimony:
-
Kinney was 18 years old at the time
-
The girl depicted was 17
-
She allegedly did not know she was being recorded
-
She allegedly did not know the video was uploaded
The plaintiff testified that these admissions were made directly to him and separately to Bennett.
These allegations were not casual accusations. They were raised under oath, in open court, and placed into the public record.
Evidence entered — and no rebuttal offered
The plaintiff submitted text messages with Michael Hatt, a senior finance employee at Aylo, the parent company of Pornhub and Brazzers.
Those messages were offered as confirmation that:
-
the video existed
-
it had been uploaded
-
and it was later removed
The court admitted the exhibits.
No contradictory evidence was introduced.
No denial was placed on the record.
The court did not rule on the evidence — not because it lacked gravity, but because the forum lacked jurisdiction.
A reaction that alarmed the plaintiff
The plaintiff also alleged that after informing Bennett of the video’s existence, Bennett attempted to search for the video himself.
In the plaintiff’s view, this response was deeply disturbing. Rather than immediately contacting law enforcement or distancing himself, Bennett’s alleged reaction raised serious concerns about judgment, priorities, and responsibility — concerns that, in this author’s opinion, warrant scrutiny.
The court did not rule on this allegation. It remains in the record — unanswered.
What police allegedly told the plaintiff
According to the plaintiff, he contacted law enforcement to report the allegations involving potential child sexual exploitation material.
He testified that police told him they did not pursue an investigation because the alleged victim herself had not come forward, and that allegations alone were insufficient to proceed. In the plaintiff’s account, officers explained that without a direct complaint from the person depicted in the video, they would not open an investigation based solely on third-party reports or sworn testimony from a civil court proceeding.
This column does not dispute that law enforcement agencies often rely on victim participation. But in the author’s opinion, that explanation exposes a troubling gap when paired with the allegations already in the record — specifically, that the victim allegedly did not know she had been filmed and did not know the video had been uploaded.
If that is true, requiring the victim to “come forward” becomes a circular standard: how does someone report what they do not know exists?
The plaintiff further alleged that the video was removed through internal corporate channels at Aylo, potentially eliminating the very evidence that might have alerted a victim or prompted independent review.
Whether police acted appropriately under policy is not for this column to decide. The outcome, however, is undisputed: no investigation occurred, and the allegations remain unresolved.
The most convenient absence
One fact shaped everything that followed:
Noah Kinney did not appear.
Kinney was not present at the hearing. He was not a named defendant. He did not testify. He did not deny the allegations on the record.
Because he was absent, the allegations involving him — including the most serious — were never tested. Not because they were weak, but because the individual most directly implicated was not before the court.
Avoidance is not vindication.
Silence is not rebuttal.
Business continued, questions did not
At the time the allegations were raised, Kinney remained a co-owner of Cannalids and associated with Old 218. Both businesses publicly listed 1308 10th Dr SE, Austin, MN 55912 as their operating location.
According to testimony, operations continued without interruption.
No public statement.
No investigation announced.
No explanation offered.
What “not adjudicated” really means
The court did not say the allegations were false.
It did not clear Kinney.
It did not endorse Bennett’s conduct.
It simply lacked authority to decide.
Jurisdictional limits are not findings of fact. They are procedural boundaries — and in this case, those boundaries prevented any meaningful examination of conduct that many would consider intolerable if true.
Why silence is not neutral
When allegations involving potential sexual exploitation of a minor are raised under oath, supported with documentary exhibits, and met not with denial but with silence, the absence of a ruling does not make them disappear.
They remain in the public record.
They remain unanswered.
And in this author’s opinion, unanswered allegations of this magnitude demand scrutiny — not because a court reached them, but because it could not.