Perez Hilton Miley Cyrus Child Pornography Scandal Could Spell Legal Disaster For Blogger
Perez Hilton often crosses the line when it comes to exposing celebrities – but he’ll likely be checking himself from here on out after posting an “upskirt” photo of underage pop tart Miley Cyrus on his Twitter account early Monday, apparently wearing no underwear.
The uncensored picture showed Cyrus getting out of a car wearing a short white dress and no underwear. The flick has since been removed, but Perez’s Twitter post remains: “If you are easily offended, do NOT click here. Oh, Miley! Warning: truly not for the easily offended!”
Perez has happily posted photos of the likes of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears in unfortunate positions on the days they chose not to wear knickers – but gossip fans are infuriated that the acid-tongued gossip guy would post images of a minor in the same position.
Hilton denies any wrongdoing, but that hasn’t stopped the blogosphere from buzzing that the controversial pundit could face criminal child pornography charges for posting the explicit paparazzi shot.
Jeffrey Douglas, a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who specializes in child pornography cases, called Hilton’s liability “extraordinary and intense.”
“We’re not talking about a misdemeanor,” Douglas told Salon.com. “You don’t have to know what the definition of the law is; all you have to do is knowingly distribute the photograph.”
It is not known whether the photo was doctored in any way.
Thoughts on this?
Written by Castina on June 15th, 2010 | Tagged as: Miley Cyrus,Perez Hilton
On June 15th 2010, Disgusted wrote:
Is he known for anything more prevalently than being gay? Wow! What an accomplishment!
On June 15th 2010, Wtf wrote:
Sooo paying to see Miley onstage in her underwear kissing girls is ok though? If you take a photo at one of her concerts are you a child pornographer? This makes no sense to me!
On June 15th 2010, John Doe wrote:
It’s ok for the little skank to act like a sexual horny adult but as soon as she’s treated like one it’s child porn? Get real. Her parents need to be slapped………HARD!
On June 15th 2010, marimadness wrote:
miley is just….i cant even explain the word. But she should stop trying to be a sex symbol and act like a classy young lady. It hurts and disgusts me to see someone who is living a million other ppls dream and doing this to it with bad publicity. If she wants to grow up she should do it in a classy manner that everyone can respect her by. Not like this. Tsk tsk miss cyrus. But i recently heard the pictures were fake. :/
On June 15th 2010, Bill Ao wrote:
Miley brought this on herself! Saw the pic at thatswag.com/miley and you can see she knew what she was getting into.
On June 15th 2010, Cleopatra wrote:
If she keeps acting like a slut that’s how she will be perceived. Underwear is not an optional item when wearing a short dress – it’s mandatory –
She can’t claim foul when she acts out – Her current image has changed into a temptress from a classy young lady – Very disappointing! I’d give Perez a pass on this one.
On June 15th 2010, Chrissy wrote:
It’s so frustrating to me because so many people would kill to have what she has. It’s like she doesn’t even care. Like she’s throwing it away. I don’t know. Maybe she thinks this will last forever. Who knows. I just know that if I had as much fame and success as she does, I wouldn’t risk it with all the stuff she’s been doing lately. But that’s just me.
On June 16th 2010, marimadness wrote:
^ i second that opinion.
On June 18th 2010, kym wrote:
i completely agree with Chrissy! i would kill to be in her position. she had a once in a million chance and most of that was because of her dad and the luck she got with hannah montanna. i will never get how celebs like lindsay lohan and her can just throw that all away. and its not even like she has superb talent, her voice is medeocer (sp?) and the life of a pop artist is always short lived. she should b careful.
On June 19th 2010, Pixie wrote:
Miley isn’t the problem . The industry is the problem. They encourage females to look and behave like sex objects, and then punish them when they do. it’s the whole virgin/whore thing,
As for Perez, he can get a life. he is no better than the taliban with their “morality police” who punish women for “unchaste” behaviour.
On June 20th 2010, J.C. wrote:
Almost every teenager acts in a sexually provocative way. The point is that as children they lack judgement and that’s why we protect them. This is a perfect example of why we have such laws otherwise rapists and paedophiles could simply claime “she deserved it”.
On June 21st 2010, michelle wrote:
when your 17 your full of whoremoans shes no different to most 17 year olds she just has a father who had a name once upon a time
On October 1st 2010, Darrem Chaker wrote:
Darren Chaker’s Thoughts on Perez & Miley
1. There is Nothing Offensive of Taking a Photograph of a Person in Public or Informing Others of Information Available to The Public.
A. Photography is Speech.
First and foremost, photography is speech. Areas open to the public are open for photography since they are a public forum. A “public forum” refers to a public place historically associated with free expression. United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176-77 (1983); Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983).
B. There’s No Expectation of Privacy in Public or What is Exposed to the Public.
As relevant here getting out of a car in public is not invasion of privacy. The law most commonly recognized examples of diminished expectation of privacy include streets, sidewalks, and parks. Grace, 461 U.S. at 177; Warren v. Fairfax County, 196 F.3d 186, 191 (4th Cir. 1999) merely taking photographs of a minor is in public not offensive. “Offensive” conduct was defined in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1, 26 (1994) (offensiveness depends on “the degree of intrusion, the context, conduct and circumstances surrounding the intrusion as well as the intruder’s motives and objectives, the setting into which he intrudes, and the expectations of those whose privacy is invaded”). Put another way, the law in California is clear – “there can be no privacy with respect to a matter which is already public” and therefore “there is no liability when the defendant merely gives further publicity to information about the plaintiff that is already public.” Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 154 Cal. App. 3d 1040, 1047 (1984). It is not at issue that the photographs were taken in public as it is not an issue Miley decided to expose herself to the public.
Simply put, since the photographer took a photograph (free speech) in public (no expectation of privacy) there is nothing wrong with the taking of the photograph. The next question is, does Miley exposing herself while getting out of a car constitute child porn?
C. Does The Momentary Exposure of a Minor’s Genetalia in Public Constitute Child Porn?
No. Abuse of the child occurs during the sexual acts which are recorded in the production of child pornography. 18 U.S.C. §2256 indicates the image of the minor must include “sexually explicit conduct”. Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.
Simply getting out of a car is not sexually explicit—it’s getting out of a car.
Conclusion:
Caveat. Miley exposed herself, which is against the law. If a male exposed himself, women would be running to dial 911, and police would arrest the man for indecent exposure. However, since it’s Miley, it’s not against the law, just a free show where no ticket is required, and is likely a promotion for her new single “You Can’t Tame Me”!