Posted on 06/15/2010 9:01:08 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
NEW YORK (CBS) Perez Hilton might be in some hot water after posting an uncensored photo of Miley Cyrus' private parts to his Twitter account.
Early Monday morning, Hilton posted a picture of the 17-year-old pop star wearing a short white dress and no underwear. In the photo, Cyrus is in the midst of climbing out of an open-topped convertible car with her lady parts exposed.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Great way to drive hits to that pervert’s Twitter account, not to mention the “promotion” of child pornography - wtg CBS!
Have you happened to catch the new Huggies diaper commercial? I was appalled last night.
Correction: Her boyfriend is only 20. My mistake. Still, if she’s living with him in her own place, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out what’s going on.
Double sentence! One for posting ‘kiddie’ porn and one for giving that skunk some airtime. That’s what she wanted
He’s not really looking at her genitalia. He has sensed that laws don’t apply to him, and he’s taking advantage of that, and engaging in a very public form of drama.
Standard in-your-face outre fag stuff.
I doubt he is even going to see the inside of a courtroom over this. He is part of the cultural elite (read postmodern sewer), so rules don’t apply.
The homo Hilton is a pig, but so is the girl.
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/06/15/miley_cyrus_upskirt
“Jeffrey Douglas, a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who specializes in child pornography cases, told Salon that Hilton’s liability is “extraordinary and intense” and that it was “suicidal for him to do this.” He added: “We’re not talking about a misdemeanor. You don’t have to know what the definition of the law is; all you have to do is knowingly distribute the photograph” — which Hilton, or someone with access to his Twitter account, most certainly did. It doesn’t matter much whether Hilton took the photo, owns the photo or published the photo — as long as he knowingly distributed the link.
Some are speculating that the image was Photoshopped — so, what then? “Under the law, that is still a crime and it is punishable just the same,” says Douglas. “For instance, if you were to take the face of an 8-year-old and put that picture on the nude body of even an identifiable, fully developed adult porn star, it is child-porn punishable identical to if you took a photo of the actual child.” What’s more, depending on how the image is presented, there is the potential for the shot to be considered child porn even if Cyrus is actually wearing form-fitting underwear; in fact, Douglas says there has been debate in the past over similar images Hilton has published of Cyrus in the past. All it will take is an enterprising attorney interested in making an example out of him; he could be prosecuted on the state or federal level — or both — with a conviction potentially resulting in a 15-year sentence and lifetime registration as a sex offender. Douglas says that “if he’s not prosecuted, there is one reason why: his name is Perez Hilton.””
You don't suppose Miley exposed herself unintentionally? Surely, you don"t.
It's gonna be a great harvest this year!
I may go against the grain, but I think Miley is the one at fault. She knows that the paparazzi follow her wherever she goes, yet insists on doing it sans-panties and climbs out of a car like she’s scaling a fence. What does she expect? This is probably more of an effort on her part to break with her Disney image and advance her career (if I ran Disney, I would have fired her long ago for tarnishing the corporate image). Secondly, this is (nominally) a news photo - she’s a public figure (literally) in a public place - it isn’t “child porn”.
I have to agree with you. I am not defending Hilton, who is pretty much a useless human being as far as I can tell, by a 17 year old out in public without underwear? I guess Brittany Spears is her idol. Disgusting and her father promotes her like a pimp. No sympathy from me for any of them.
A couple of people have reference a British tabloid story that says she in fact did have underwear on, and that the photo that Perez twittered was photoshopped, which is still possibly a crime.
Looks like his career will hit a dirt road not of his own choosing.
see post #48.
Sounds like the next Britney or Lindsay in training....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.