ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/17/2018 12:07 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  9.522 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
06/20/2010 12:15 PM ID: 84515 Permalink   

Perez Hilton: Miley Cyrus Photo Faked

 

Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton has caused a storm in a tea cup after posting a photo that allegedly showed "Hannah Montana" star Miley Cyrus exiting a car in a short dress. The part visible beneath her skirt was pixelated out.

It also carried a warning notice. Now, after possibly facing child pornography charges because Cyrus is only 17, Hilton claims the photo was fake and he only posted the photo to show the "very unladylike fashion" in which the Disney star was moving.

In a video, Hilton said: "Do you think Miley is that stupid to be out in public without panties? Do you think I am stupid enough to post a photo of Miley if she is not wearing any underwear down there?"

 
  Source: news.yahoo.com  
    WebReporter: Lois_Lane Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  16 Comments
  
  The answer  
 
to both of his questions there is "yes".
 
  by: Lois_Lane     06/20/2010 12:32 PM     
  lol  
 
lol at the child porn charge
 
  by: JayWar   06/20/2010 07:20 PM     
  Yep  
 
They take that extremely seriously these days.
 
  by: Lurker     06/20/2010 07:33 PM     
  umm  
 
i really doubt it was a fake but who ever looked at it should be charged as a pedophile too.

but hes gay so does it count since its a girl, he wants little boys!
 
  by: groomsy     06/20/2010 09:12 PM     
  @groomsy  
 
Was that a dig at gays or at Hilton?
 
  by: zirschky     06/21/2010 04:53 AM     
  Just a philosophical queston  
 
If perez hilton had super imposed a towel over the girl´s privates to obscure them from view, would it still have been subject to child porn? Pixelation is a form of obscurement. If superimposing a towel over the genitalia would have ruled out child porn, then pixelation should also rule out child porn charges. It isn´t that I like PH. Either of them for that matter, but this charge seems trumped up. She could have been wearing flesh colored panties for all we know. The photo was pixelated. A person would have to be very interested in her crotch and have a very active imagination to totally ignore the possibility of flesh colored undies. Me thinks we may have a closeted pedophile as a prosecutor here.
 
  by: tomblik     06/21/2010 06:02 AM     
  Um  
 
Shouldn´t it only be child porn if its NOT pixelated?

Also, 17? Child porn? Please. Thats the legal age of consent in a lot of states. I understand that sex is different from photography, but the latter honestly seems less hurtful. Kiddie porn of children and of older teenagers should be two different catagories.
 
  by: jonnysodoff   06/21/2010 10:27 PM     
  @tomblik  
 
Deductive reasoning would tell you that if he had the photo to pixelate in the first place, he was in possession of child pornography. Also I doubt he knows how to use Photoshop, so one can deduce that he also knowingly distributed child pornography to someone else to have it shopped.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     06/21/2010 10:35 PM     
  @tet  
 
Doesn´t he run a celebrity blogging site? I´m pretty sure he has some knowledge of basic photoshop.
 
  by: jonnysodoff   06/21/2010 10:42 PM     
  @jonnysodoff  
 
No, hes a blogger. His webmaster and IT team run the website. He types things in a little box, its about as simple as using Facebook/Myspace. Editing and pixelating an image requires at least basic knowledge of photoshop, which I doubt he has. There isn´t a pixel button you can just click on and draw over something. There is a process to adding pixelation. He probably has a full time graphic artist working for the site.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     06/21/2010 11:09 PM     
  N/t  
 
Kiera Knightly was 16 when she flashed her tits in The Hole. This isn´t childporn, and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. No getting around it. And they should be ashamed of themselves for diminishing the severity of ACTUAL child pornography by making such frivolous claims.
 
  by: crazywumbat   06/22/2010 06:28 AM     
  Yes and yes  
 
And I hope Perez gets locked up for posting that. After a trial by jury of course.
 
  by: av8rdav   06/22/2010 10:54 AM     
  @wumbat  
 
if it was in the US it would be, ENGLAND holds different standards than us.
 
  by: groomsy     06/23/2010 08:18 PM     
  @wumbat OT  
 
Kiera Knightly!! What tits? She´s so flat she has buried treasure(a sunken chest).
 
  by: billycan   06/24/2010 07:14 PM     
  WRONG...AND WHO CARES!  
 
perez POSTED THE PHOTO ON FACEBOOK, THAT HE GOT FROM SOME OTHER OTHER SITE...
AND THE LITTLE TRAP-SKANK cyrus WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET HER PHOTO IN THE NEWS, BECAUSE SEE KNOW SHE IS OVER...THANK GOD!

Kiera Knightly..I DIDN´T KNOW SHE HAS TITS!! LOOKS LIKE MOSQUITO BITS TO ME!
 
  by: AG4JAZZ   06/24/2010 07:31 PM     
  my 2 cents  
 
If he gets charges brought up against him then she should as well for being an accessory to the "crime". Seriously, it´s no big secret that high profile female celebs do this when they need to boost their popularity (Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, etc). Any celeb knows that there are going to be cameras at every possible angle and no underwear with a dress or skirt means there is a very good chance your cooter will show up online soon. Also this isn´t the first controversial thing regarding her. She had a few different pictures that mysteriously showed up on the net and then that whole stripper pole thing. This is a victimless crime and real or not it boosted her popularity.
 
  by: treyjazz   06/25/2010 04:43 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com