It’s hypothetical situation time! Imagine that someone gives you an upskirt photo of young Miley Cyrus.
What do you do? Do you a) ignore it because you’re sick of Miley Cyrus, b) ignore it because you’re unsure of the validity of the photo, c) ignore it because you’re unsure of whether Miley Cyrus is wearing any underwear or not, d) ignore it because Miley Cyrus is very young and you don’t want to look like a creepy old bastard, or e) link to it from your Twitter account because you are, by any reasonable standard, an unremitting bonehead?
What? The last one? You’re Perez Hilton, aren’t you? Because that’s exactly what Perez Hilton did this week. And now he’s released a video where he sounds like the noise your dog makes when you flip it over, grab its tongue and tickle it, which experts have translated into an apology.
There are probably worse things in the world than photos where Miley Cyrus doesn’t seem to be wearing any underwear, but we can’t think of any at the moment. Genocide’s not worse. Famine’s not worse. Environmental catastrophe has the potential to be worse, but it isn’t worse yet.
Oh wait, we’ve got it – the one thing worse than a photo where Miley Cyrus doesn’t seem to be wearing any underwear is the act of linking to a photo where Miley Cyrus doesn’t seem to be wearing any underwear on Twitter. Because that’s what Perez Hilton has done, and now he’s in trouble for it. Miley Cyrus is 17, so posting the photo to Twitter arguably constitutes distribution of child porn, which could theoretically land Perez Hilton with a mandatory 15-year jail sentence.
This means it’s time for Perez Hilton to start backtracking wildly. The photo of Miley Cyrus has long since been yanked from Twitter, and now Perez Hilton has released a video claiming that Miley was definitely wearing underwear in the photo and is it OK if he doesn’t go to prison please…
Disappointing, isn’t it? Perez Hilton didn’t even scream or burst into tears like he did when one of the Black Eyed Peas pushed him around a bit last year. But, still, that’s not the point. How would Perez Hilton like it of someone used Twitter to post a picture of him without any underwea… oh, Jesus, we’ve just thrown up. And gone blind. And, by the smell of it, soiled ourselves fairly considerably. Sorry.
Follow hecklerspray on Twitter
Dez says
WOW, THIS SICK BASTARD POSTED A UPSKIRT PICTURE OF A 16 YEAR OLD?!! I don’t care how popular she is, I hope he rots in jail forever and ever. Amen.
Ryan P says
This article is self righteous douchery. Public nudity of under age people is not considered pornographic. That’s why pictures of naked babies aren’t considered pornographic, and that’s why there are pictures of naked families on the websites of nude beaches, some of which are state run.
Glo says
This is just too funny.
andyuscum says
Why this “person” is even considered newsworthy is beyond me. And to think he makes money for this. Best thing to do with these people is o ignore them until they go away
Kathleen says
I find it interesting that none of your hypotheticals includes anything like, “It would be disrespectful of a young woman” or, “It would be morally wrong.”
Last paragraph is funny, ‘though, and brings up a worthy hypothetical: How would you like it if it was your sister, mother, daughter…
Jerry says
Perez should be prosecuted for distributing child porn. if it was some smuck from normal world they would be in jail as we speak.
Rarian Rakista says
Maybe he was fascinated by it medically, he is a doctor right?
OrionsGate357 says
Contrary to Ryan P’s comment about this not being pornography, it in fact is. Just check Title 18 of the US code. The code was revised some years back to address situations like this, specifically where a digital image is altered to give the appearance or create the impression on the viewer that the subject being shown in a nude or semi-nude state is underage. The problem for Mr Hilton is that when he digitally altered the photo he was consciously trying to create the impression there was something that should not be seen. If as he says the 17 year old was in fact wearing underwear he would have been far better off (but still just as classless) by allowing them to show. By “covering” them he was consciously trying to create the impression of underage nudity. As as Title 18 USC says, it only takes one image to convict. In addition, he also opened himself up for a civil suit based on libel. He might want to go to law school, or at least consult both a criminal and civil attorney, before he takes anymore photos or says anything else. Better yet, just keep doing what you are doing. You can spend the rest of your 15 minutes (and then some) in a cell.
sungdude says
Genocide is not worse? Famine is not worse? Fuck you and your first-world problems. You’re a piece of shit, way worse than Perez. I know it’s a joke, but it’s not fucking funny, you worthless hack. Some things you simply don’t joke about. Unfortunately, Rwandans, people in Darfur, etc. don’t usually have internet access to have the weight of genocide and famine lightened by your cleverness.
I can imagine you snickering to yourself hunched over your iPad, wrapped in a snuggie, patting yourself on the back for your cleverness. You will never write for a better publication than a cheap gossip blog, Stuart Heritage, because you are an unfunny piker who lacks the wherewithal to write anything more creative than celebrity gossip, and even then you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.
And the kicker is that you cannot hope to reach the success that Perez Hilton, that piece of hogshit, has reached. I hope you starve and are ethnically cleansed.
Brian Schend says
It’s an up the skirt photo, dumbass. The pure privacy violation involved is enough for the child porn charge. Why else would anyone take a picture like that?
Tom J says
If that’s your idea of child pornography then you should see… you know what, I’m not actually going to finish that sentence. If only Perez Hilton had my foresight.
Tom J says
“Some things you simply don’t joke about.”
You’re new here, right? I can only thank God we don’t live in your world, where some things aren’t joked about. Everything is funny when you’re a wealthy westerner, especially other people’s misfortune.
Gary Vegas says
If Hiltons’ mother had opposable thumbs she’d probably be embarrased.
EssBen says
“ethnically cleansed”? like a Turkish bath? Nice.
as for the story, define porn.
according to the 1986 Attorney General Commission on Pornography it is material that is “predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal.”
probably depends on who you get presiding over the case as to whether you should get used to being bum raped in the sex offenders shower block.