Perez Hilton 'could face child porn charges'

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"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.

For his two million plus followers to see, the celebrity blogger posted the picture with the following introduction, "If you are easily offended, do NOT click here. Oh, Miley! Warning: truly not for the easily offended!"

But it's the celebrity blogger that might need a warning. Cyrus is underage. Police might consider her naked image child pornography."

more


Miley Cyrus upskirt shot: Child porn?

<snip>

Blogger Perez Hilton posts a link to an alleged upskirt photo of the 17-year-old -- and could face serious charge

"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 here (deleted link) 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."

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/06/15/miley_cyrus_upskirt

[YOY]

1. Whatever it takes to make him go away.

The freaking Joan Rivers of his generation.

[dionysus]

2. + 10000000000

[Toasterlad]

8. I'll Thank You Not To Equate That Piece of Shit Perez Hilton With Joan Rivers.

[YOY]

10. Good point. Joan was a great comic routine back in the Johnny Carson days.

Perez was never a great anything.

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. See ya, buddy. nt

[NoNothing]

4. What is the deal with not wearing underwear?

I don't get it.

[WinkyDink]

6. Publicity. Also, the new trajectory for Disney girls. They all end up skanky.

And it becomes "normal" for millions of other American girls.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. VPL.

Visable panty line. Depending on the outfit/type of material, it is near impossible to not have VPL, so many gals choose compando to eliminate the possibility altogether.

[DefenseLawyer]

5. Not necessarily

I have no idea about California law, but the federal law would require that the photo show "graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person". This statutory definition is refined by the so called "Dost factors" which are:

1) whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area;
2) whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;
3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child;
4) whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
5) whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity;
6) whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

Obviously I haven't seen the photo, but if it is an unposed shot that happened to catch more of her than she intended that isn't automatically within the definition of pornography.

[meegbear]

9. From Salon.com ...

...

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."

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/06/15/miley_cyrus_upskirt/

[DefenseLawyer]

14. I've tried scores of these kinds of cases in federal court

I have never heard of Jeffrey Douglas, but he is certainly entitled to his opinion and more than entitled to get his name in the paper. Not every image of someone underage without their clothes on is child porn. Kids in the bathtub, for example. The law requires that it be a graphic or lascivious display of the genitals, which isn't necessarily the case in an unposed, candid shot. I'm not seeing many of the Dost factors met here. That's what federal prosecutors would be looking for.

[Coventina]

11. As Brian Setzer would sing, "She's Sexy and 17"!

My how the world has changed in my relatively short lifetime.....

[WeekendWarrior]

17. Or the Beatles

She was just seventeen
If you know what I mean...

Honestly, this is really much ado about nothing. Perez is an ass, and maybe deserves to get spanked or ridiculed for doing this, but prison? Come on.

[WeekendWarrior]

12. She's wearing underwear. Rickey.org

Much ado about nothing.

[DefenseLawyer]

15. Actually wearing underwear isn't the deciding factor

A photo can still be considered a lascivious display of the genitals even if the genitals covered. The Dost factors look at the pose, the manner of dress, and several other things. I doubt this is pornography, but underwear won't automatically end the matter.

[here_is_to_hope]

13. The photo was on 4chan this am

and it's an obvious 'shop.
But yeah, good bye freak!

[FVZA_Colonel]

16. Of course, even if it is a shop, I'd imagine Perez was the one who made it.

That means a thirty-plus year old man took the time out of his day to photoshop a vagina onto the body of a 17 year old girl that he hates.

God, I hope that fucker goes to prison.

[Captain Hilts]

18. Not for this he won't. nt

[dicenator]

19. about fricking time