Perez Hilton Could Face Child Porn Charges For Miley Cyrus Photo

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,245
Location
Edge's beanie closet
The law is the law

salon.com

Perez Hilton has built a thriving career out of offensive behavior: He's called countless female celebrities bitches, hos, whores and sluts, and covered their faces in jizz using Microsoft Paint. But these things merely violate good taste -- not federal child porn law that carries a mandatory sentence of 15 years. The same cannot be said for his latest shocker: tweeting a link to an alleged upskirt photo of a pantyless 17-year-old Miley Cyrus.

The facts as we know them: On Sunday, Hilton's Twitter account sent out the following message: "If you are easily offended, do NOT click Oh, Miley! Warning: truly not for the easily offended!" The photo in question has since been yanked down, but the image is allegedly of Cyrus climbing out of a car wearing a dress and no underwear.

Now, Hilton has posted upskirt shots before of Britney Spears -- but Cyrus is roughly five months short of her 18th birthday. She's still a minor and it's legally considered child pornography.

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. 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."

As is often the case when you delve into the realm of child porn law, it's rather shocking what you can find -- from sexting teens charged as sex offenders to parents arrested for taking photos of their kids naked in the bathtub. If a 15-year sentence and lifetime registration as a sex offender seems a disproportionate response to what Hilton did, remember that scores of Americans face similarly disproportionate charges but don't have a recognizable, headline-making moniker.
 
Karma's a bitch, ho, whore and slut.

Quite possible that he has staff who post on his Twitter account. You can bet high profile people who allow others (publicists, assistants etc) access to their public online accounts will be consulting with their lawyers.
 
Yeah, right


Reuters

In a video riposte, Hilton said the controversy was as fake as the photo because Cyrus was "clearly wearing underwear."

"Do you think Miley is that stupid to be out in public without panties?" he said. "Do you think I am stupid enough to post a photo of Miley if she is not wearing any underwear down there?"

Hilton said he had posted the photo to highlight the "very unladylike fashion" in which Cyrus was getting out of the car.
 
"Do you think Miley is that stupid to be out in public without panties?" he said. "Do you think I am stupid enough to post a photo of Miley if she is not wearing any underwear down there?"

there have been, as said so many shots like this........and surrounding such photos is 'cellulite' to 'going combat'

in general ANY photos of 'upskirt shots' should be fuking ripped down! not just cause she or any girl is a minor.

but ya know what, in general Perez is a d.......................kh..........................d
(in my eyes)
 
Read this in another article

Last fall, Demi Moore accused him of being a pedophile after he posted photos of her 15-year-old daughter Tallulah.

“Let me ask all of you, what is it called when someone is telling people to look and focus on a child’s ‘boobs & ass’ while providing photos? It’s called child pornography” Moore tweeted.

He also posted nude photos of “High School Musical” star Vanessa Hudgens on his Web site perezhilton.com, shots her lawyers contend were taken when she was underage.

Did Perez care?

He begrudgingly removed the Hudgens pics and said Moore was delusional.
 
If a 15-year sentence and lifetime registration as a sex offender seems a disproportionate response to what Hilton did, remember that scores of Americans face similarly disproportionate charges but don't have a recognizable, headline-making moniker.

And if any charges do come from this, it's his 'recognizable, headline-making moniker" that will likely keep him from facing the same fate that Joe Schmoe from Anywhere Else, USA would have faced. :slant:



(Although I really, really, really hope he gets burned on this. He's such a vile, bitter, pathetic human being. :sick: )
 
I think I am one of the very few people that thinks the way he pokes fun at celebrities is funny :reject:

Of course, if this story about Miley is true then that is definitely crossing the line.
 
Full disclosure: I do enjoy mindless celebrity gossip and have been known to laugh at some of the more "mean" gossip.

BUT.

Perez Hilton is the worst of the worst. He's a misogynistic and homophobic brat.

That being said, I'd love to see paparazzi who take those horrible "upskirt" photographs prosecuted as well.
 
Full disclosure: I do enjoy mindless celebrity gossip and have been known to laugh at some of the more "mean" gossip.

BUT.

Perez Hilton is the worst of the worst. He's a misogynistic and homophobic brat.

That being said, I'd love to see paparazzi who take those horrible "upskirt" photographs prosecuted as well.

Isn't he gay?
 
Yes.

He's still done at least one public homophobic thing (trying to provoke will.i.am by calling him "faggot" during a confrontation outside some club last year; Perez ended up getting punched), so I have no problem calling him a homophobic asshole. ;)
 
I'm going off of commentary I've read about him over the past years, but that's the example that stuck in my mind. It's possible to be gay and still say hateful things about someone else's sexuality.

So yeah, take out the "homophobic" part of my rant if you want, maybe that wasn't the appropriate term, but he's still a douchebag.
 
I was going to say that Perez is an idiot, and he well may be, but he's also a genius at commodifying himself, as well as creating and expanding his brand.

If only that power were used for good.
 
This is a comment I read. Hardly the only one, there have been many similar comments. And many who say she concocted this whole thing herself (or her parents did) as a publicity stunt.

Because she exploits herself she can't be exploited? And her personal conduct, style of dress, and her parents have anything to do with a picture being distributed of her that's legally child porn. How her parents have wronged her is an entirely different issue. I've never seen Demi Moore's 15 year old daughter in any racy outfits or lap dances or lesbian kisses-so she would have more of a legit complaint? Child porn is child porn-no matter what the child looks like, says, or does. The fact that Miley is looking and acting much more like an adult than a child these days is not relevant to what Perez Hilton did.

"Anyone else find it disturbing that this is being labeled as 'child pornography'? There are serious issues the world over with children being exploited...Miley Cyrus exploits herself.

I recognize it may have been a stupid and "illegal" thing to do but by getting up in arms over what amounts to a horribly bad publicity stunt on BOTH their parts undermines everything that is being done to prevent real exploitation and abuse. Everything seems to suggest that this girl (whose T & A & "lesbian kisses" seem to be all over the news) has been more wronged by her trashmonger parents for letting her "express" herself like a hooker in public. "
 
I dont want to get started on Miley but I kind of agree with the last comment. She's 17 and she's dressing like a hooker, of course she's going to be photographed and made fun of. So I guess in 5 months when she's 18 it will be ok to put up pics of her crotch?
 
Because she exploits herself she can't be exploited?

Absolutely agree with this. This is separate from my feelings about Miley herself (or Paris or Britney or whoever else had similar incidents), but that line of thinking "oh, she wanted that picture to be taken" is too close to "she was asking for it" for my liking.

Going around without underwear is not an invitation to have someone shove a camera up your skirt. Or at the door when you're awkwardly getting out of a car.

So yeah. Just reeeeeeeeeeeally uncomfortable with that line of thinking.

No comment about Miley and her ongoing shenanigans particularly. Just wanted to put that out there.

If she was 18, we could still talk about how shitty the paparazzi are to be taking those pictures, but there wouldn't be a legal issue about potential child pornography.
 
I dont want to get started on Miley but I kind of agree with the last comment. She's 17 and she's dressing like a hooker, of course she's going to be photographed and made fun of. So I guess in 5 months when she's 18 it will be ok to put up pics of her crotch?

Legally in five months yes, he could do that. Vanessa Hudgens didn't have the Miley reputation and wasn't dressing like a hooker and he did it to her. I just don't think there's any difference. He can make fun of Miley all he wants for dressing like a hooker if that's what he wants to do-he just can't link to what is legally child pornography.

I don't understand why nothing happened to him for the nude Vanessa Hudgens photos.
 
Didn't Vanessa send those pictures to someone via text, and that's how they got out? I wonder if that had something to do with it. No idea how that works.

Aren't there laws now that the teens themselves could be charged with child porn for "sexting" even if they take the pictures themselves? That they're the ones making and distributing child porn? I don't know how widespread those laws are.
 
Absolutely agree with this. This is separate from my feelings about Miley herself (or Paris or Britney or whoever else had similar incidents), but that line of thinking "oh, she wanted that picture to be taken" is too close to "she was asking for it" for my liking.

Going around without underwear is not an invitation to have someone shove a camera up your skirt. Or at the door when you're awkwardly getting out of a car.

I agree-and many of the comments I read basically said she deserves this for not wearing underwear.

It's not an exact analogy- but no matter how many guys a woman sleeps with or how she dresses, she can still be raped. I'm not at all equating rape with what is happening here-but legally it is child porn and ethically/morally I also don't think that any of Miley's personal background is any sort of defense for this whatsoever. If it was you could say that for any trafficker of child porn-they could just say that the kids were willing participants, acted older than their age, etc. which is what most of them already say to justify what they do.
 
And many who say she concocted this whole thing herself (or her parents did) as a publicity stunt.

That is just absolutely fucking ridiculous, and so beyond fathomable I can't even...ahh. Sigh. Anyone who thinks that this photo being put out was Miley's idea and a publicity stunt is a FUCKING imbecile and needs a lobotomy. I wasn't even going to post in this thread, but that sort of shit gets me riled up. I'm not talking to anyone in this thread specifically, because I don't think any of you have made this insinuation. I'm talking about the people who have speculated that it was a stunt or, even worse, are stupid enough to believe it. God dammit. And Perez Hilton is a vile toad. Nothing more.
 
I'm going off of commentary I've read about him over the past years, but that's the example that stuck in my mind. It's possible to be gay and still say hateful things about someone else's sexuality.

So yeah, take out the "homophobic" part of my rant if you want, maybe that wasn't the appropriate term, but he's still a douchebag.


these things always confuse people
if a white person is against civil rights legislation, he may be racist and labeled that way

I would rather trust an old white guy(1) with civil rights decisions
than an African American (2)

(1) Justice John Paul Stevens

(2) Justice Clarence Thomas
 
Then as a proud gay man, he shouldn't resort to flinging homophobic slurs at other people as an insult.

Bleeeeeeeeeeeah, I just can't stand that putz.

I KNOW THIS COMES AS A HUGE SHOCK. :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom