Perez Hilton posts Miley Cyrus bottomless pic. Is that child porn?

Jun 15, 2010, 11:05 PM

I see London. I see France. Apparently Perez Hilton posted a pic of Miley without underpants. EW.com news reports that columnist Perez Hilton posted a pic of 17-year-old Miley, in a Britney Spears type pose. She was getting out of car when a photographer snapped a photo and saw something he should not have captured for posterity.

This is one time I am glad that I am having trouble posting a link. Rest assured that AOL news says that the pic is down. I certainly have NOT checked.

EW quotes Hilton as saying â€œI think now it's okay for Miley to be a little sexier. Because she's almost 18, you know, so it's okay for Miley to show her boobs and expand, uh, her horizons.â€

That certainly is not the law in the state of California or wherever Miley was when the photograph was taken. The "horizons" defense is not one that usually works in child porn cases.

It is unclear where Perez was when he posted the photos and what law would apply. To make it worse, an ambitious DA could charge Perez in a jurisdiction where at least one person clicked on the link.

Perez's column is read all over the world. He could see London. He could see France indeed.

He could become Perez Montana! Who knows" Poor Perez Hilton might end up sharing a cell with Joran van der Sloot in the Peru Hilton June 15, 2010 examiner.com

comments (5)

Jump to latest

georgmicrodong15 years ago

What a fucking tool. He pretty much deserves what he'd get in prison. Then again, he'd probably like it and volunteer for more.

Yeah, I'm a bigoted asshole. I hate people who think their choices should be adopted by everyone. Sue me.

troop15 years ago

i'm with georg on this.

Dudester15 years ago

Miley was actually wearing underwear. When the pic was taken, her legs were spread as she exited the car. The pic he posted completely covered her lower area with a "censored" banner.

Here's the thing, he could be prosecuted under the "Knox rule". However, he won't be.

The Knox rule is that "even if the underaged female is fully clothed, if the intent of the picture is to titillate, then the pic is illegal"

The Knox rule came from a case where a guy went to the park and took a lot of pics. The pic that got him in trouble was a ten year old girl sitting next to her friend. The girl, wearing a shirt and blue jean shorts, had her legs spread and the photographer focused in on that one area.

The reason he won't be prosecuted is because he'll hire a high dollar lawyer. The lawyer will find a hole in the Knox rule, and the feds will suddenly find thousands of child porn cases in jeopardy.

The Knox rule was used to shut down a plethora of sites where the girls were underaged, fully clothed, but some of the pics thought provocative.

Clubber15 years ago

Also, it is very much NOT pc to pick on fags!

georgmicrodong15 years ago

Just to be clear, for my part, I couldn't care less about his sexual orientation. My beef is with his apparent regard that everybody else has to not care about it as well.