Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 156
  1. #21
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by BigB08822 View Post
    Why is it "ok" just because the picture was proven to be a fake?
    It isn't okay because of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    from what I read in Reuters, her crotch was pixilated in Perez's photo and no one could see anything anyway, so it's hardly pornographic, child or otherwise.
    Unless you think a pixilated photo with a warning notice is somehow pornographic?

    I made the point that Miley was wearing underwear because someone asked if she was trying to be Britney 2.0, and apparently she isn't. Yet.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    at FSU
    Posts
    3,924
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2790
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    It isn't okay because of that.



    Unless you think a pixilated photo with a warning notice is somehow pornographic?

    I made the point that Miley was wearing underwear because someone asked if she was trying to be Britney 2.0, and apparently she isn't. Yet.
    Maybe it was pixelated so we couldn't see she has a penis. That's right folks, Miley is a man, like Lady Ga Ga (who's real name by the way is Graham Cracker). Miles Cyrus this is your 5 minute call.


    My goodness, what's wrong with me today???
    I guess the hard thing for a lot of people to accept is why God would allow me to go running through their yards, yelling and spinning around.


  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nashville
    Age
    98
    Posts
    7,275
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    549
    My view is that any upskirt pic is inappropriate but especially so with a minor regardless of the state of her underwear. It's a voyeuristic photo which by it's very nature sexualizes it's subject matter. I don't care if she's ALMOST 18. She's not yet and he was very much in the wrong. I'm not sure what makes it ok for a paparazzi to take and sell these photos and bloggers to publish them when other men are prosecuted for similar behavior using hidden cameras. Women should have some protection from photographers who go out of their way to get these upskirt photos. It's an invasion of privacy. I haven't seen this particular photo but I've read that many paparazzi will practically lay on the ground and/or hold their cameras on the end of a tripod with a remote trigger to try to shoot up the skirts of celebrities.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Dashing Between Bennetton and Krispy Kreme
    Posts
    2,451
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    A bit off topic, but you can only hope Angela Lansbury was wearing undies from Viola Davis' expression in this picture.

    http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3269755648/rg414358016

  5. #25
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by uyeahu View Post
    My view is that any upskirt pic is inappropriate but especially so with a minor regardless of the state of her underwear. It's a voyeuristic photo which by it's very nature sexualizes it's subject matter. I don't care if she's ALMOST 18. She's not yet and he was very much in the wrong. I'm not sure what makes it ok for a paparazzi to take and sell these photos and bloggers to publish them when other men are prosecuted for similar behavior using hidden cameras. Women should have some protection from photographers who go out of their way to get these upskirt photos. It's an invasion of privacy. I haven't seen this particular photo but I've read that many paparazzi will practically lay on the ground and/or hold their cameras on the end of a tripod with a remote trigger to try to shoot up the skirts of celebrities.
    Agree with all of it, but Perez was being accused of peddling child pornography.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    at FSU
    Posts
    3,924
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2790
    Quote Originally Posted by essence_of_soy View Post
    A bit off topic, but you can only hope Angela Lansbury was wearing undies from Viola Davis' expression in this picture.

    http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3269755648/rg414358016
    She was, but they were crutchless.
    I guess the hard thing for a lot of people to accept is why God would allow me to go running through their yards, yelling and spinning around.


  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nashville
    Age
    98
    Posts
    7,275
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Agree with all of it, but Perez was being accused of peddling child pornography.
    I think it depends on how liberally you define pornography. Is it simply subject matter presented in a manner meant to sexually stimulate or does it have to be EXPLICIT subject matter? I think upskirt photos by their nature are voyeuristic shots meant to sexually titillate, and Miley is still legally a child. The argument can probably be made.

  8. #28
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by uyeahu View Post
    I think it depends on how liberally you define pornography. Is it simply subject matter presented in a manner meant to sexually stimulate or does it have to be EXPLICIT subject matter? I think upskirt photos by their nature are voyeuristic shots meant to sexually titillate, and Miley is still legally a child. The argument can probably be made.
    Any argument can be made, but you would first have to make the case that the photo was posted in order to stimulate a sexual response. I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that the average person would find a pixilated blob sexually stimulating. It would certainly cause some problems for network television.

    Perez did it to stimulate a response, but I don't think he meant it to be sexual. I think he meant it to get people all worked over the SCANDAL of it all. And it worked.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nashville
    Age
    98
    Posts
    7,275
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    549
    Is his intent really the determining factor? The photo is or is not appropriate regardless of his intent.

    ETA: Just thought I should add that I think his intent was to post a photo that he knew would get a lot of hits, and he knew that an upskirt celebrity pic would do that because so many DO find it sexually titillating regardless of whether or not he did. Why else would these photos be more highly publicized and valued than the average bikini pic? They are not more revealing, but they are revealing in a voyeuristic way that violates the privacy of the subject and that many find sexually stimulating.
    Last edited by uyeahu; 06-16-2010 at 06:30 AM.

  10. #30
    Awaiting Validation
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    island auntie
    Posts
    1,147
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/71...6----000-.html

    Based on the link, intent doesn't really have anything to do with it. I'm not sure if the picture is explicit enough or graphic enough to be defined as child porn.

    I think there are plenty of pedophiles, creepy old men and teenage boys that would find a pixilated crotch sexually stimulating. At the bare minimum, it saves a few steps for them.

    At any rate, I hope someone takes up the case and makes Hilton suffer for a while.

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    298
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm surprised Perez does not have some sort of attorney that proofreads his posts before they go online. He's made tons of $$$ now, he's not just some goof in his parent's basement.

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fenway Park
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,751
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm not condoning what Perez did, and the photo shouldn't have been posted either way. She defintiely has a case against him. But she's 17, old enough to know better. She shouldn't be flashing her bits, covered or uncovered, either way....she knows papparazzi are following her everywhere. I saw photos of her an another site in that black leotard where there was some camel toe action going on. She doesn't exactly seem to be the epitome of ladylike right now and she's bound to get herself caught in an embarrassing situation again sooner rather than later.

  13. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Walking to Work
    Posts
    25,842
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    32560
    I used to read his blog, but he's a phony, hypocritical cockroach of a man.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Rejecting your reality and substituting my own
    Age
    30
    Posts
    11,004
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
    I'm not condoning what Perez did, and the photo shouldn't have been posted either way. She defintiely has a case against him. But she's 17, old enough to know better. She shouldn't be flashing her bits, covered or uncovered, either way....she knows papparazzi are following her everywhere. I saw photos of her an another site in that black leotard where there was some camel toe action going on. She doesn't exactly seem to be the epitome of ladylike right now and she's bound to get herself caught in an embarrassing situation again sooner rather than later.
    The thing is that, this isn't like Paris Hilton flashing her bits by lifting her skirt while drunkenly dancing on a bar. Usually it's of women getting in out out of a car and someone got a lucky shot.

    I'm so klutzy I'm pretty sure I flash everybody when I get in and out of a car in a skirt. Sure, I don't wear short skirts a lot because I know that I might flash people inadvertently, but I'm not about to call someone inappropriate and unladylike and "they should know better" because they're a little klutzy while getting in and out of a car. Come on.

    I don't get how upskirt shots of women getting in/out of a car is soo skandalous. I think it says more about the photographers who do it and the people who talk about how gross it is rather than the women involved. Unless they're upskirt shots of Paris Hilton dancing drunk on top of a bar.

  15. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fenway Park
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3,751
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Anita18 View Post
    Sure, I don't wear short skirts a lot because I know that I might flash people inadvertently, but I'm not about to call someone inappropriate and unladylike and "they should know better" because they're a little klutzy while getting in and out of a car. Come on.
    I agree, and maybe it was just an instance of klutziness in that case. It's not just the flashing getting in and out of the car though.....

    http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jj1//20...-awards-06.jpg

    http://cdn.buzznet.com/media/jj1//20...-awards-04.jpg

    http://ll-media.tmz.com/2009/08/11/0...89726856-1.jpg

    I know it's a performance, but with that outfit (the booty shorts and bra handing out) and the pole dancing, there isn't a lot that's appropriate and ladylike about it.

  16. #36

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    17,272
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    29999
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
    I know it's a performance, but with that outfit (the booty shorts and bra handing out) and the pole dancing, there isn't a lot that's appropriate and ladylike about it.
    It's also really derivative and unoriginal (child star breaks out of tween mold by running around in underwear....yawn). Between that, her terrible singing, and her general cluelessness about the music industry, I suspect we won't have to endure her, pantless or not, for a whole lot longer.....

    ETA: Speaking of Disney stars being marketed as singers, the other day we were sorting the CDs at the rink and were about how a few years ago the kids pretty much refused to listen to anything that wasn't Hilary Duff...
    Last edited by overedge; 06-16-2010 at 07:40 PM.
    You should never write words with numbers. Unless you're seven. Or your name is Prince. - "Weird Al" Yankovic, "Word Crimes"

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    City of Blinding Light
    Posts
    15,910
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    12302
    Quote Originally Posted by BigB08822 View Post
    Why is it "ok" just because the picture was proven to be a fake? He still posted it and A) didn't realize it was fake or B) knew it was fake but posted it anyway for attention. So either he caught a huge break by posting what turned out to be a fake pic or he is getting exactly what he wanted when he posted a fake picture but its just not the attention he thought he would get.
    No. Legally as I understand it in the US, even if the photo was faked, if the person depicted is underage, it's not okay. The girl is underage, so the photo, albeit doctored, could be considered child porn, depending. I haven't seen the photo, so I can't comment further about whether or not this photo could be considered porn, but based on descriptions, I'd think it could, yes.

    With child porn, as someone else mentioned, above; it's not about the intent of the person who posted the picture. It's really about the result, not the intent.

    I think they still use the "reasonable person" idea re: pornography, legally. In other words, as one judge said, "I know it when I see it." If a reasonable person would see this photo and think it was child porn, then Perez could be in trouble for posting it, yes.
    Last edited by GarrAarghHrumph; 06-16-2010 at 07:11 PM.
    Use Yah Blinkah!

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,827
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1192
    Did anywhere else also post the photo? I don't generally read Perez Hilton, but I know a lot of what he posts isn't actually uploaded by him but linked from other places.

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,486
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rex View Post
    I used to read his blog, but he's a phony, hypocritical cockroach of a man.
    Tell us how you really feel.

  20. #40
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by uyeahu View Post
    Is his intent really the determining factor?
    Legally, no, but you said

    Quote Originally Posted by uyeahu View Post
    Is it simply subject matter presented in a manner meant to sexually stimulate
    In which case it would matter. In saying that the subject matter is being presented in a way to sexually stimulate, you make the intent an issue.

    Let's say that I run a foot fetishist site with photos of feet. Is that pornographic because it's meant to sexually stimulate those who find such photos sexually stimulating or not because I'm just showing pictures of feet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
    She shouldn't be flashing her bits, covered or uncovered, either way....
    She was getting out of a car on a windy day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
    I know it's a performance, but with that outfit (the booty shorts and bra handing out) and the pole dancing, there isn't a lot that's appropriate and ladylike about it.
    Appropriate and ladylike? *clutches pearls*

    If you consider that "pole dancing," well, okay; it sure didn't look like pole dancing to me. And if you consider that outfit terribly scandalous, I suggest you stay away from your local high school.

    Quote Originally Posted by GarrAarghHrumph View Post
    I think they still use the "reasonable person" idea re: pornography, legally. In other words, as one judge said, "I know it when I see it." If a reasonable person would see this photo and think it was child porn, then Perez could be in trouble for posting it, yes.
    Right. And as I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that the average person would find a pixilated blob sexually stimulating. It would certainly cause some problems for network television.
    So

    Quote Originally Posted by Auntie View Post
    I think there are plenty of pedophiles, creepy old men and teenage boys that would find a pixilated crotch sexually stimulating.
    I don't, but let's say that you are right--do those people constitute "reasonable" people?

    I am just at the idea that people with internet access would find a pixilated crotch stimulating. There can't be too many of them.
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •