Up-skirt Miley Cyrus Photo Child Porn?

(CBS)  Celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton is in the middle of his own scandal.

Hilton posted a photo of Miley Cyrus on his Twitter page that appeared to show the 17 year old stepping out of a car without underwear - though, it turns out, she may have had underwear on, after all.

Some say the posting could be child pornography.

But Hilton is fighting back.

He removed the controversial photo from his Twitter page after a national outcry.

And he insists the tweet was meant to teach Cyrus a lesson. "The reason I linked to that photo is 'cause I think she was exiting this car is a very un-ladylike fashion. And you know, I like to encourage Miley to be ladylike."

PICTURES: Miley Cyrus

Hilton, who calls himself "The Queen of Mean," has a well-known history of pushing boundaries.

Last September, he posted a photo of Demi Moore's daughter, Tallulah Willis, saying the 15 year old was "dressing like a slut!"

But, says CBS News Correspondent Bill Whitaker, he may have crossed a legal line with his Cyrus posting.

"There are laws against putting that kind of stuff on the Internet, and he could be prosecuted," observes defense attorney Steve Cron.

Psychologist David Swanson calls the post "deeply disturbing. … It's child pornography, and it's normalizing the idea of sexualizing young adolescent girls."

Hilton's response to his critics? "Sure, I like to be controversial, but I don't want to go to jail. People -- snap out of it!"

In recent months, the underage pop star has been projecting a more adult image, promoting her new album, "Can't Be Tamed."

In an interview with radio host Ryan Seacrest, Cyrus dismissed Hilton's actions, saying, "That's like some idiot being an idiot. That's not me."

Hilton posted the Cyrus picture with the caption, "If you're easily offended, do not click here."

One fellow blogger says that's not a warning -- it's an invitation. "Of course," says Sharon Waxman of TheWrap.com, "when you put out a tweet that says, 'Don't look at this if you're sensitive at all,' that's pretty much an invitation for everybody to click."

Authorities haven't commented on whether Hilton will be charged with a crime.

[Animedude5555]

Two things. I found what may be the original, and she is not wearing panties. Her vagina is visible (although it's not exactly the main focus of the image). Now either that is a photoshoped version with added nudity (while the original has her with panties), or it is the real original while the one Perez uploaded (with panties) is a photoshop censor version. I'm not sure which it is. I'll let you all decide for your selves by posting a URL to the pic (but not a direct link, as all "." have been turned into "(dot)").
img229(dot)imagevenue(dot)com/img(dot)php?image=46550_O8_123_465lo(dot)jpg

Personally upon examination of the image, and comparing it to the definition of obscenity (or child porn when refering to anyone under 18), it doesn't meet the tough standards needed to make it illegal. As the 1st ammendment is considered an important freedom in the US, the requirements to get an image labled obscene (or child porn) are quite strict.

It must not only show the genitals (or at least the region of clothing that covers them), but show them in a "lewd and lascivious" manner (they must be posed lewdly such that it is obvious that the portion of the image showing the genitals is clearly the important part of the image and that it is being done for the purpose of making a sexual image). It also must also serve neither an artistic or nor educational purpose.

In the case of this image, the image serves no educational purpose, and as for artistic purpose, any photo (or painting or statue) may be considered by some to be artistic but not by others (they might think it looks like a plain old photo with no "aesthetically pleasing" quality about it). So the artistic nature is in question. Then the other question is if the depiction shows this part of the body in a "lewd and lascivious" manner. I'd say it wasn't lewd and lascivious. The camera didn't zoom in to that part of her body. I'm not even sure if she realized that she was sitting in a manner that would expose her (so I don't have proof that she was posing for a "porno shot").

So all in all, while I do feel it is tasteless and shouldn't be shown on TV due to FCC's indecency restrictions of content on TV, I wouldn't go so far as to call this image pornographic or obscene. This is significant, because if it was deemed such, the fact that she is under 18 (even though 17 is almost 18) would make it "child porn" and therefore would make the image illegal. So no I don't believe the image is pornographic, so no I don't believe it is illegal.

[EquiPro]

Miley and Perez are two peas in the proverbial pod and BOTH are crazy?like a fox.
1) Regarding Perez: he didn?t take the pictures. He didn?t photoshop the pictures. He didn?t even post the pictures. He just linked to them and make a few snarky comments. Now he?s all over the world media. He knows, as well as should all, that he?s not promoting child pornography. Heck, he could have stirred that pot up himself. Perez is smart and knows what he is doing.
2) So does Miley. How much money does she have?.think about it. How many ?handlers? does she have? There have been THOUSANDS of performer before she came along doing all sorts of things in far less clothing and you NEVER see their hootch or anything close to it. Trust me that this was carefully planned and choreographed by her and her people. My daughter dances (age 12) she can do a full standing split and I GUARANTEE you that you won?t see a millimeter of inappropriate skin. And that?s in a $15 leotard.
Additionally, she CERTAINLY knows how to and how NOT to exit a car with or without reveling anything. She KNOWS that they?ll be gunning for a crotch-shot. She?s been in this business a LONG time already and she ain?t dumb.
Miley is breaking her Disney image and is in complete and total control of all of it.
And Perez is helping her every step of the way, whether intentional or not.

[BPisoni]

The owner of the website the actual picture is located on, our the photographer who distributed it, are the ones who could be facing real charges. Even a lousy attorney could have any suit filed against Hilton in regards to this subject thrown out, lack of evidence/ownership/control. The fact is the subject matter is not even clearly pornography, and at 17 she is still a minor but close enough to adulthood that it makes the matter of any potential child pornography even more diluted. All those in favor attempting to file a suit need to think about the taxes you pay and where you want to see them going. The DA's in Mr. Hilton's jurisdiction most certainly have more important cases involving real criminals to deal with.

[yesimjustme]

You need to study up, what you wrote here is entirely false.

If you link to an image that is of an underage girl, nude... That is dissemination of child pornography and is a federal crime.

In addition, this is what DA's are for. there is no excuse for such actions and the only thing being diluted here is you in your attempt to marginalize this crime.

[dablack2004]

i dont view mr idiots child porn. She is of age and she is not acting like a child anyway so we can save the drama. However mr perez needs to stop trying to be the queen or whatever he wants to be gossipist and get real stuff to talk about. Besides its his turn to be on the fire pit and definately that is what his ass gets from Ms America. Personally he is not smart should not take pictures of something so simple. Ms Myley should just learn a lesson everyone is watching including mr perez or whatever it is and cover your mess up you are a celebraty damn!!

[dagrandma]

I've seen worse in magazine advertisements.

[giantss2007]

she acts like a **** on stage and people are surprized that she wearing a mirco short dress and no no panties she is an its all about me diva not a child

[realist_007]

Everyone is so focused on the legality of this... does someone actually think that this is morally wrong? People need to stop being so naive and realize that Miley isn't the innocent little victim in this story, she probably cheered when this photo was publicised. I haven't seen this photo, but it seems to me it didn't even show enough to be provocative. While Hilton may be an idiot if he thinks he can get away with this, I morally see no problem. She is old enough to realize what's going on here and what she got herself into when she began portraying herself as mature enough to do that photo shoot a while back. Has everyone already forgot that?

[lilbear925]

Technically, even though he has removed the picture from his blog, then claims it was "photo-shopped", it still can be classified as child pornography. Porn laws only allow the use of underage figures if they are drawn and not photographed. (what sick congressman allowed that?) So, Perez Hilton (or whatever his REAL name is) can be charged with creating and distributing child pornography. OK, some district attorney go after him.

[Xenulol]

Yes---someone use time, energy, and public funds to go after Hilton for publishing / distributing an upskirt photo of a *17-year-old* that arguably showed very little and was possibly even Photohopped, according to reports...And yes, let's do that INSTEAD of prosecuting high-level child pornographers who are currently raping and abusing infants, toddlers and pre-pubescent children and sharing their homemade and/or commercial porn on the Internet with hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. Again, people: try to think about this rationally. Where is our energy better spent? On Miley Cyrus---17 years old, famous, and notorious for engaging with the papparazzi---or on actual pre-pubescent CHILDREN who are being actively raped and abused worldwide for the delight of real (and really dangerous) pedophiles. Perspective, please.

[Xenulol]

The Miley upskirt photo is emphatically NOT "child porn." The fact that so many people is clearly demonstrates that most of them a.) have no clue as to what real child porn looks like and/or b.) have never seen any real child porn. Miley is 17 years old---she's an adolescent, not a "child." That's point number one. Pedophiles (who are interested in PRE-PUBESCENT CHILDREN---NOT TEENS) would not even be remotely interested in such a photo of Miley. Ephebophiles (those sexually attracted to TEENS but not to PRE-PUBESCENT CHILDREN) might potentially be interested, but that's beside the point.

Miley is not naked in the photograph. It's an upskirt, and if she chose not to wear panties while knowing that the papparazzi can and will take these kinds of pictures, then she's party to this image being produced. Furthermore, Miley Cyrus herself has released at least a dozen images to the media that far better qualify as "porn" than a mere upskirt shot.

Finally, for those of you who are---pun intended---getting your panties in a twist over a photo of Miley that is very clearly NOT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, I encourage you to read the following:

1. Tim Tate's book on child porn

and

2. Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography Online by Philip Jenkins

Both authors provide graphic descriptions of what actual child porn looks like, and the kind of content it features. Once you get some perspective and educate yourselves, you'll realize that the idea of calling the Miley photo "child porn" is beyond absurd.

There are photographs floating around of children as young as 3 being vaginally and anally raped, performing ******** on adult men, and even engaging in bestiality (as in the "9y/o Jenny" series of child porn). Let's put the focus where it belongs and stop wasting energy on an upskirt shot of a celebrity who is almost 18.

[josocool1]

I have four granddaughters and all of them love Miley Cyrus. The photo of Miley that Hilton posted is indeed "child pornography" and he should be prosecuted. However, the issue goes much further than this one incident. The exploitation of children by the entertainment industry has been overlooked and to some extent condoned by the parents of children stars. Prosecuting Hilton is only a pill for the disease of dwindling morals that plagues this country.

[Xenulol]

See my comment directly above. You clearly have never seen actual child porn, which is why you are incorrectly labeling the Miley photo as such.

[bobnjersey]

[The photo of Miley that Hilton posted is indeed "child pornography" and he should be prosecuted.]

so ... you saw the photo uncensored?