TotallyOz Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Perez Hilton posted a photo of Miley Cyrus on his Twitter. It was her getting out of a car without panties. Her pussy was showing. The problem. She is 17. Thus, Perez is in hot water. Miley has said she is very comfortable with her body and wants to show it off. Personally, I think Miley is stupid for this and her parents should have been in charge of the situation. However, she is almost 18 and I don't think Perez really thought about the consequences of the photo before it appeared. Do you think Perez should get charged? The photographer? Or, is this even a big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JKane Posted June 16, 2010 Members Share Posted June 16, 2010 I think she should be charged with public indecency and Perez should get the whole 'sex offender' works. Not because of any deep moral outrage, I just can't stand either! Hoping for parenting from Billy Ray Cyrus might be about as productive as hoping for decent music from either Cyrus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TampaYankee Posted June 17, 2010 Members Share Posted June 17, 2010 Do you think Perez should get charged? The photographer? Or, is this even a big deal? Yes, for stupidity and grossly bad taste, but that is not news. Miley is hardly a 'child', traveling the fast lane and shaking her booty all over the stages from Tulsa to Timbuktu. This is not a knock on her only that one doesn't exist in that world for long without acquiring the skills/sophistication to navigate those streets. I suspect, truth be known, she is pleased with the coverage spawned by the exposure -- pun intended. We have a recent history of the legality of child brides with marriages sanctioned as young a 15 and younger. Today, 'children' can get married at 17 with parents permission in many States. There is child porn and there is 'child porn'. To treat this the same as kiddy porn with 9 and 11 year olds or even younger children is to misconstrue and misapply the really heinous nature of kiddy porn IMO. Cyrus is a celebrity, thus a public figure. I assume the photographer did not crawl up her dress for the photo. Perez did not intend to distribute the photo with the intent to promote 'child porn', I assume. She is a borderline adult traveling often without parental presence for guidance -- else she wouldn't be getting out of taxis wearing short dresses without panties. Apparently her parents feel she is mature enough for that or else maybe they should be the target or prosecution for wreckless child abandonment in this case. Just a thought. Nevertheless, laws must be written with a certain arbitrariness. That is where judgment of the prosecutors and judges come into play -- to soften the sharp edges of arbitrainess. Unfortunately, some prosecutors and judges live in worlds of black and white, whether because of ideology or maybe political objectives. IMO the punishment should fit the crime taking into account intent of both the aggrieved and the trespasser and extenuating circumstances that apply. Perhaps it is time to add nuance to child porn laws to distinguish really heinous kiddy porn from high school sexting from papparazi photos of borderline 'adult' celebrities seeking publicity. FWIW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
