Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, or someone with access to his Twitter account, sent out a link to a celebrity "upskirt" photo last Sunday. No big deal, right, happens all the time? Seriously, just ask Lindsay Lohan. Except this time, the skirt was allegedly being worn by one Miley Cyrus.
For those who don't hang out in the Internet gutter, such photos are usually snapped when a female celeb -- in a short dress or skirt, preferably sans panties -- gets out of a car. It's a vulnerable moment, unless you're Demi Moore, in which case your ninja upskirt-blocking skills prevent such hideous images from being captured.
Outside of celeb circles, such ninja skills are referred to as "acting like a lady."
But here's the problem: Miley, no matter how much she "Can't Be Tamed," is only 17. As in, not 18. Also referred to as "not legally an adult." Which means laws protecting kids from sexual exploitation could come into play -- 17 is an age that Perez's male enhancement needs to be kept to ones self...not published on the net.
The link's long gone, and there's talk that the image might be a product of Photoshop, but according to a legal analyst over at Salon, none of that matters.
"We're not talking about a misdemeanor," attorney Jeffrey Douglas told the website. "You don't have to know what the definition of the law is; all you have to do is knowingly distribute the photograph."
On Monday night, Hilton posted a video -- not a direct response to the photo link, mind you -- in which he says that "it's OK for Miley to be a little sexier, because she's almost 18." And on Tuesday afternoon he posted a link to a picture of Miley fully clothed, allegedly "proving" underwear was present because you can see it through her frock.
Mmm-kay. Isn't an upskirt of a child's underwear sort of the same thing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment