Perez, Child Porn, or Celeb Culture - What's the Offense? June 15, 2010 8:06 AM   Subscribe

"Metafilter is too good for this low crap." "This really doesn't seem like a good idea." - I'll shoot. Why?

There's not much of an explanation here for the deletion. Can we get a clarification so that we know what to avoid posting in the future? What's the violation of guidelines here, or is there a worry of legal liability around discussing (or more importantly, linking to) child pornography? Or is it the celeb culture? It seems like a pretty big news stories, and MF generally has no problem with shitty news posts. (No offense. Disclaimer: I lean to the far left end of the "keep all posts/delete shitty posts" spectrum.)
posted by mrgrimm to Etiquette/Policy at 8:06 AM (124 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

If you read all the comments, it seems like people were pretty unanimous in feeling like it was a bad post.
posted by stoneweaver at 8:09 AM on June 15, 2010


This was one of those times when we were just following the flag queue. My best guess is ... tawdry title + link to spammy seeming celeb blog + Guardian link isn't a great combination and linking to the upskirt photo itself just made it seem that much more OMGfilter and not really "oh hey here's something interesting on the web"

It seemed like a fight out of the gate. A photo of Miley Cyrus without her underwear isn't really child porn in any real sense and people were just going to start hollering at the OP for his phrasing and "I got fired because I clicked this at work" stuff. I'm aware that the OP was just quoting Salon who themselves is probably going for some of the SEO juice you get by using the words "Miley Cyrus" and "child porn" in a sentence but just because they have no standards doesn't mean we shouldn't.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:12 AM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


I think it's all of the above, mrgrimm. And then some: 17-year-old girls should not be subjected to this sort of thing. By posting it and discussing it here, we are contributing to the general shittiness of this act. So we won't.
posted by Mister_A at 8:12 AM on June 15, 2010 [16 favorites]


I think people reflexively abhor posts about pop celebrities on MeFi, but I was too was honestly wondering what the legal discussion would look like. It didn't link to the actual undoctored photo, it wasn't really about Miley Cyrus, but really what are the consequences for Perez Hilton?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:13 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


If you read all the comments, it seems like people were pretty unanimous in feeling like it was a bad post.

All the more reason not to delete it. Why encourage the chronic threadshitters?
posted by enn at 8:13 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


I also think that women older than 17 should not be subjected to this kind of treatment.
posted by Mister_A at 8:14 AM on June 15, 2010 [40 favorites]


I bet a Roger Ebert upskirt photo would be ok.
posted by bondcliff at 8:15 AM on June 15, 2010 [10 favorites]


All the more reason not to delete it. Why encourage the chronic threadshitters?

Why make a nightmare of a moderation task? I also thought it was a terrible post, and the OP didn't help himself by calling Miley Cyrus a "tart of the week" in the comments.

The thread was guaranteed to go badly because of its subject and its poor framing. The legal discussion might be interesting, but linking the actual photo is pretty much not ever going to go well here.
posted by Caduceus at 8:18 AM on June 15, 2010


I was too was honestly wondering what the legal discussion would look like.

Yeah, that same set of facts, done up differently, I think would be an interesting discussion.

All the more reason not to delete it. Why encourage the chronic threadshitters?

I'm not sure I understand you. Threadshitting is a few people dropping turds in an otherwise okay post. A resounding chorus of "this post sucks" with very little other feedback isn't really threadshitting, it may just mean it's a bad post. We've been a lot better at deleting early threadshitting lately, this really wasn't that sort of post.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:19 AM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


I think people reflexively abhor posts about pop celebrities on MeFi, but I was too was honestly wondering what the legal discussion would look like. It didn't link to the actual undoctored photo, it wasn't really about Miley Cyrus, but really what are the consequences for Perez Hilton?

Salon thinks he's screwed:
Jeffrey Douglas, a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who specializes in child pornography cases, told Salon that Hilton's liability is "extraordinary and intense" and that it was "suicidal for him to do this." He added: "We're not talking about a misdemeanor. You don't have to know what the definition of the law is, all you have to do is knowingly distribute the photograph" -- which Hilton, or someone with access to his Twitter account, most certainly did. It doesn't matter much whether Hilton took the photo, owns the photo or published the photo -- as long as he knowingly distributed the link.

Some are speculating that the image was photoshopped -- so, what then? "Under the law, that is still a crime and it is punishable just the same," says Douglas. "For instance, if you were to take the face of an 8-year-old and put that picture on the nude body of even an identifiable, fully-developed adult porn star, it is child porn punishable identical to if you took a photo of the actual child." What's more, depending on how the image is presented, there is the potential for the shot to be considered child porn even if Cyrus is actually wearing form-fitting underwear; in fact, Douglas says there has been debate in the past over similar images Hilton has published of Cyrus in the past. All it will take is an enterprising attorney interested in making an example out of him; he could be prosecuted on the state or federal level -- or both -- with a conviction potentially resulting in a 15 year sentence and lifetime registration as a sex offender. Douglas says that "if he's not prosecuted, there is one reason why: his name is Perez Hilton."
I agree with flapjax at midnight that upskirt (and for that matter, so-called 'downblouse' pictures are "low crap." They're voyeuristic gotcha journalism at its worst -- and incidentally they're also against the law in several countries including the US (federally and in many states.) The laws usually say that people should be allowed an expectation of privacy.
posted by zarq at 8:25 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think people reflexively abhor posts about pop celebrities on MeFi, but I was too was honestly wondering what the legal discussion would look like.

Yeah this is the discussion I was hoping for, and was disappointed to see all the early comments were everyone seeing how quickly they could muster up their righteous indignation.

There were two interesting things here; does this really constitute child pornography (the Salon guy got a lawyer ready to quote absurd what-if scenarios), and this is the second time I recall Perez Hilton posting something absolutely false. The latter is not a huge deal, but I do not see other celebrity bloggers posting anything that comes into their mailbox. I was trying to dig up a link to the second item but refreshed to see the thread closed. I don't expect people like Perez to uphold NYT style journalistic ethics, but he simply makes shit up. No apologies, no retractions. I'm not aware of any other celebrity blog (TMZ, DListed) that is so egregious.

But given the response in the thread, I guess I should just stick my nose in the air and only care about celebrity gossip when it comes from the indie music world.
posted by geoff. at 8:25 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Threadshitting is a few people dropping turds in an otherwise okay post. A resounding chorus of "this post sucks" with very little other feedback isn't really threadshitting, it may just mean it's a bad post.

Maybe so. It seems that people are not great at figuring out which kind of post they are in, though, and the frequent justification for pointless this-post-sucks comments is, "oh, I was sure it was going to get deleted." Sometimes it gets deleted and sometimes it doesn't but I wish people wouldn't do this at all.

We've been a lot better at deleting early threadshitting lately

This is true! It's great.
posted by enn at 8:27 AM on June 15, 2010


I thought it would have been OK if there had been something there besides what was already over the big aggregator blogs (the Gawker media family, etc.)--like some legal links, even if they didn't cover this particular case.

I've been frustrated lately by the number of posts that link to content that appeared widely, and on widely viewed sites, the same day or even days ago....without any extra/different links for context or angle that might, well, put the Meta in Metafilter. Instead it feels like, "This was an awesome discussion on Jezebel/Gawker/Fark/Digg....let's move it here!"
posted by availablelight at 8:27 AM on June 15, 2010 [8 favorites]


I bet a Roger Ebert upskirt photo would be ok.

I think we've established precedence on that one.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:27 AM on June 15, 2010


Yeah, that same set of facts, done up differently, I think would be an interesting discussion.

jessamyn and mathowie, are you saying that if someone wrote a post that focused on the legal issue, it would be OK? (I'm actually getting out of the house today so it won't be me)
posted by desjardins at 8:28 AM on June 15, 2010


All the more reason not to delete it. Why encourage the chronic threadshitters?

Sorry dude, the post sucked. There was no chance it was gonna last.
posted by empath at 8:28 AM on June 15, 2010


Yeah, that same set of facts, done up differently, I think would be an interesting discussion.

That's my take as well. I think if there's a meaty legal and social aspect to this whole deal, that might be worth posting out in a different way—leading with, essentially, UPSKIRT SHOT OF MILEY CYRUS PEREZ HILTON CHILD PORN HEY HEY HEY is just about the worst way to frame a post that's ostensibly interesting because of the things that aren't Perez-Hilton-qua-Perez-Hilton or Hannah Montana's vagina. I don't know that Fizz was trying to get a rise out of folks, but it was a poorly made approach to the subject and was getting flagged like crazy.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:29 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


jessamyn and mathowie, are you saying that if someone wrote a post that focused on the legal issue, it would be OK? (I'm actually getting out of the house today so it won't be me)

I am guessing a post which did not include the words "Child Porn" "Miley Cyrus" and "Upskirt photos" might have a better chance of lasting.
posted by empath at 8:29 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


jessamyn and mathowie, are you saying that if someone wrote a post that focused on the legal issue, it would be OK?

No. I'm saying I could envision ways to write a post that people would enjoy talking about and not just howl at each other about. I'm not at all interested in giving the green light to another post generally speaking. We see this sort of thing happen where someone's upset about a deletion, we explain that phrasing matters, and someone then goes to MeFi and makes a nearly identical post but changes a few words and then we feel that our options are to delete it and say "try again" [thus creating a sort of "try harder" situation which sucks for us and for the community in my opinion] or stick with a post that is only marginally better than the last one which winds up with the same problems and an existing MeTa and a bunch of people in the thread saying "this shit again?"

If people don't have a feel for why this post was bad, I would prefer they didn't make another post on the same topic. For someone who sort of gets what the problem is [and yeah empath is on teh right track] yeah maybe. It's a big world and photos of one teenage girl's vagina and legal issues surrounding same is actually low on the list of things that I personally think are interesting. Might be worth waiting to see what actually winds up happening instead of postulating about what might happen.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:34 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


This was one of those times when we were just following the flag queue.

Fair enough. I do similar work myself, and that's certainly a considerable factor. (Again though, hate to see one POV dominate/exclude others.)

I can certainly see how the framing and language of the post did not help its chances. Que sera.

"Flaq queue" is an acceptable answer, imo.

I'll file this one under "fails to meet the MetaFilter community's standards of quality" and/or "possibly offensive/inflammatory text or media" ;)
posted by mrgrimm at 8:36 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


and this is the second time I recall Perez Hilton posting something absolutely false.

I'm not going to bother to search for links, but IIRC, he once posted that Michelle Obama was pregnant (she wasn't, but the idea sparked a tabloid extravaganza,) that Fidel Castro had died (he hadn't,) and dismissed Michael Jackson's death as a publicity stunt. (Um...)

I've met him. It would not surprise me in the slightest if he chose to post those stories and this one for their potential to accelerate him and his blog into the spotlight.
posted by zarq at 8:37 AM on June 15, 2010


Maybe so. It seems that people are not great at figuring out which kind of post they are in, though, and the frequent justification for pointless this-post-sucks comments is, "oh, I was sure it was going to get deleted." Sometimes it gets deleted and sometimes it doesn't but I wish people wouldn't do this at all.

It's definitely swampy territory, yeah. That said, this is one of those instances where dislike for the post was being expressed loudly and widely via multiple channels, so it's not so much an ambiguous case of a few people bombing a post with doomsaying of the sort that tends to be more problematic. I think we're less inclined to look at this as threadshitting in the most problematic sense so much as a fairly noisy but collective response to a badly-made post, but definitely there's no way to cleanly partition one sort of behavior from another and it can be problematic in varying degrees.

Cf. people making jokey comments in an obviously-doomed askme; sometimes they are really obviously doomed, but, yeah, people should still ideal just flag and move on. But there's less proscription on that sort of thing on the blue vs. the green.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:37 AM on June 15, 2010


No. I'm saying I could envision ways to write a post that people would enjoy talking about and not just howl at each other about.

I'd love to see a successful one. But I suspect it would be hard to frame it in way where it wouldn't automatically devolve into a bash-Perez-Hilton-fest.


That would not be a bad thing.
posted by zarq at 8:40 AM on June 15, 2010


Not to derail the was-this-a-good-post discussion (I don't think it was), but can this possibly be true? "For instance, if you were to take the face of an 8-year-old and put that picture on the nude body of even an identifiable, fully-developed adult porn star, it is child porn punishable identical to if you took a photo of the actual child."

It's child porn even if the body isn't that of a child?

(It wouldn't surprise me if there were legal precedent on this, given our national fuckedupedness about sex/sexuality/porn/etc., but still, weird.)
posted by rtha at 8:40 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


That would not be a bad thing.

Perhaps not for you, but any collective "Let's gang up on our collective enemy" thread most of the time brings out the worst in this community.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:45 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


Just for the record: I don't think it was a very good post. I would agree now with jessamyn and say wait and see how the story develops and then post about the legal developments, etc. (I still don't think it should have been deleted, but that's me. I'm all-inclusive.)

Also for the record, I didn't make this MeTa post as a proxy for the deleted post. Make a new post about it instead of using this one...
posted by mrgrimm at 8:46 AM on June 15, 2010


I've been frustrated lately by the number of posts that link to content that appeared widely, and on widely viewed sites, the same day or even days ago...

Solution: Read fewer other sites.
posted by DU at 8:46 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's child porn even if the body isn't that of a child?

(It wouldn't surprise me if there were legal precedent on this, given our national fuckedupedness about sex/sexuality/porn/etc., but still, weird.)


IANAL, but perhaps the question being asked is whether the child is being exploited in some way by having their picture associated with pornography? I am not sure if that should really be considered child porn. But speaking personally, if it were my child's face pasted on an adult woman's naked body and distributed on the 'net without my permission as her legal guardian, I'd find that pretty infuriating.
posted by zarq at 8:47 AM on June 15, 2010


It would be nice if SEO Juice could be extracted from the crushed skulls of banninated spammers, then applied to subjects of merit. "Yeah, so that dude lurked for three months and eight comments before posting a link to his store. Turns out he was doing it on other forums. After we put his noggin in a vice, we applied the SEO Juice to a portion of the FAQ that people just don't seem to pick up on in searches."
posted by adipocere at 8:49 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


Perhaps not for you, but any collective "Let's gang up on our collective enemy" thread most of the time brings out the worst in this community.

True, true. It was a meta (small "M") comment, and not a suggestion. I won't be the one handing out pitchforks.
posted by zarq at 8:49 AM on June 15, 2010


There's nothing there. Some asshole took a picture of a dopey celebrity who doesn't wear underwear. There are tons of other sites out there to gawk at this kind of thing and/or make pseudo clever comments.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:54 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


But speaking personally, if it were my child's face pasted on an adult woman's naked body and distributed on the 'net without my permission as her legal guardian, I'd find that pretty infuriating.

Errrr.... I should probably have put the "without my permission as her legal guardian" in parentheses or something, because otherwise it makes it sound like my approval would make that sort of picture A-OK. :P
posted by zarq at 8:54 AM on June 15, 2010


Celebrity-filter doesn't fly, unless the celeberity is Lady Gaga. Or dead.

The eventual dead Lady Gaga post is going to be one hell of a time.
posted by owtytrof at 8:56 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


The eventual dead Lady Gaga post is going to be one hell of a time.

*starts gathering video links*
posted by zarq at 8:59 AM on June 15, 2010


But speaking personally, if it were my child's face pasted on an adult woman's naked body and distributed on the 'net without my permission as her legal guardian, I'd find that pretty infuriating.

Oh, absolutely, yeah. Just wondering about the actual legalities of it.
posted by rtha at 9:02 AM on June 15, 2010


I just want to give a shout out to jessamyn and cortex. I don't know if it's just the tea I'm drinking this morning but looking at the deleted posts over the past two days --- dios mios, are we in eternal September these days or what? Those are some bad posts!
posted by cavalier at 9:03 AM on June 15, 2010


Durrr... 3 minute edit window... shout out to them for having to deal with all of the noise. Heh.
posted by cavalier at 9:04 AM on June 15, 2010


are we in eternal September these days or what?

There was a huge bump in membership right after the devotchke saga, but I don't think most of these posts are from brand new members.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:05 AM on June 15, 2010


If there's any weight to zarq's quote, should the mods consider nuking the post all together. Or perhaps at minimum, stripping the URL from the link?
posted by slogger at 9:15 AM on June 15, 2010


should the mods consider nuking the post all together. Or perhaps at minimum, stripping the URL from the link?

I don't see why, no. Linking to a censored photo doesn't seem to cause any problems for us and when a thread is deleted I'm pretty sure it drops off The Google. We really don't have a "nuke the post altogether" option in our toolkit. If people want to remove the content from the site that is hosting it, that's their prerogative.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:18 AM on June 15, 2010


I have to hand it to fizz -- he's persistent. I think for every post that manages to stay on the front page, ten of them get deleted.
posted by crunchland at 9:26 AM on June 15, 2010


UPSKIRT PHOTOS OF SOME DIMWITTED UNDERAGE CELEBRITY IS NOT THE BEST OF THE WEB.

METAFILTER IS NOT A FUCKING NEWS SITE. GO TO REDDIT FOR THAT SHIT.
posted by Afroblanco at 9:27 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


Some asshole took a picture of a dopey celebrity who doesn't wear underwear.

The "world's biggest blogger" (maybe) published a nude photograph of the "world's biggest underage star" (OK, probably not).

But you're right that the news media is not blowing up over this story.

(I think the claims of child pornography are ridiculous, fwiw, but again, not a proxy post, not a proxy post ....)
posted by mrgrimm at 9:37 AM on June 15, 2010


Afroblanco, put the martini down! It's not even 10 am yet.
posted by hellojed at 9:40 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


If there's any weight to zarq's quote, should the mods consider nuking the post all together.

If there's any weight to Salon's analysis, the post should have stayed up.

However, I'm not sure there is...

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where

* the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

* the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

* the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that

* depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or

* depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

(via)


It seems like a nude picture of a minor would not be considered pornography, but if you Photoshop semen onto it, it would be. There's no sexual depiction or behavior in the original photograph, though. That's pretty clear.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:44 AM on June 15, 2010


I would be all for deleting the threadshitting even when a post is deleted.
posted by Artw at 9:45 AM on June 15, 2010


> I think the claims of child pornography are ridiculous, fwiw

An "upskirt" of a more or less fully developed young woman doesn't really classify as porn in many people's idealized notions of porn, but it's still legally child porn at any rate.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:45 AM on June 15, 2010


Good luck arguing with a DA over fine print.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:46 AM on June 15, 2010


If there's any weight to Salon's analysis, the post should have stayed up.

The weight of Salon's analysis has exceedingly little to do with whether this particular post should have stayed up. Again, the topic behind it may or may not turn out to be interesting and discussion-worthy, but a post is just a post and this one was not remotely a keeper.

I would be all for deleting the threadshitting even when a post is deleted.

It's not usually the best possible use of our time, nor is it necessarily something that I think is a good idea in a lot of cases. Punitive post-hoc comment deletion isn't really a part of our approach; if there's a particularly good reason to delete a comment for other reasons, we may well do so, and if someone has a bad threadshitting habit they'll hear from us, but those are mostly two unrelated issues.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:49 AM on June 15, 2010


I have constructed a Lego version of Miley Ray Cyrus and will be posting upskirt photos forthwith.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 9:51 AM on June 15, 2010


If I've learned anything from watching hours and hours and hours of Law & Order, Burhanistan, I know that there's a huge difference between a real courthouse and the courthouse of public opinion. In a real courthouse, all they do is argue over the fine print.
posted by crunchland at 9:53 AM on June 15, 2010


The more I think about it, the more I think widespread nudism would solve a hell of a lot of problems in this country.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:54 AM on June 15, 2010


I would be all for deleting the threadshitting even when a post is deleted.

This is an interesting idea. Like there is the need for some multi-layered Inferno of deleted bits. And it would create another shadow site, which gets weird when I think about it too much.
posted by Back to you, Jim. at 9:59 AM on June 15, 2010


The more I think about it, the more I think widespread nudism would solve a hell of a lot of problems in this country.

I think I'll be skipping the Nudist Retirement Home, though.
posted by zarq at 9:59 AM on June 15, 2010


widespread nudism

um
posted by found missing at 9:59 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


It seems the whole point of the post's existence is because it is celebrity driven. Would someone actually dare make a FPP about some random unknown blogger posting a (fake, or not) upskirt photo of some random unknown 17 year old, and include a link to the (edited) photo to boot?

I guess the surrounding legal issue/s are vaguely interesting, but sans an actual legal case study it really just comes down to a bunch of opinions on the internet. IF this whole idiotic thing actually goes to court and is ruled upon (especially the bit about pasting underage faces to overage bodies), then I'll be interested in the whole thing.
posted by edgeways at 10:01 AM on June 15, 2010


The collision of culture and law here is, really, fantastic when you think about it. We idolize our celebrities, yet allow them no privacy -- except where the law allows, which (beyond being a child) it really doesn't, once you're a "public figure". Yet here we are, with children having adult-level careers, adult-level fame and adult-level incomes, and the media machine working so hard to make them seem more together and adult than they really are -- so this kind of collision was inevitable. I agree it would have been an interesting discussion, but I do find myself depressed that the mainstream media will never raise this perspective on the issue for discussion.
posted by davejay at 10:01 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


um
posted by found missing at 11:59 AM on June 15 [+] [!]


Yeah you heard me.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:02 AM on June 15, 2010


I see Perez Hilton and Miley Cyrus and think, ach! feh. But I think there is an interesting broader post to be made about the possible unwitting creation of child pornography and the way some sites (like Limewire) handle images, which gives prosecutors an opening to take what is essentially a possession offense and charge as a distribution offense, which has a much harsher penalty. Judges' lack of familiarity with the way these sites work (and the internet in general) fuels the problem. It seemed like Fizz framed it in an oooh celebrities nekkid way which kind of ruined the possibility for interesting legal discussion. Not sure how many serious legal scholars are up in arms about Miley Cyrus upskirtiness.
posted by *s at 10:08 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


this is one of those things that no one's going to remember in a month - another manufactured controversy to keep people's names in the press

it's not worth our time
posted by pyramid termite at 10:20 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I hadn't heard about this anywhere else and was looking forward to the discussion.
posted by Skorgu at 10:22 AM on June 15, 2010


Good luck arguing with a DA over fine print.

What else do you think law is but attorneys arguing over the fine print?
posted by Nothing... and like it at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I would also like to see the legal discussion, because I would take great pleasure in discovering specifically how Perez Hilton will be destroyed.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:42 AM on June 15, 2010 [4 favorites]


devotchke saga

What is this devotchke saga? Why do I always miss the memos?
posted by cavalier at 10:51 AM on June 15, 2010


cavalier, this is the meTa follow-up. fake's Russian friends maybe being trafficked thing.
posted by rtha at 10:54 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


I would take great pleasure in discovering specifically how Perez Hilton will be destroyed.

Word on the street is that a certain bro is going to ice him.
posted by Think_Long at 10:56 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


And you don't think he has like nineteen Smirnoff Ices on his person at all times?
posted by shakespeherian at 10:59 AM on June 15, 2010


okay, 20 bros are going to ice him. The endrunkening will be epic, and will be summarized in a salon.com article claiming that Perez will probably be executed for providing alcohol to bro minors.
posted by Think_Long at 11:04 AM on June 15, 2010


I would like to subscribe to every one of your publications.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:05 AM on June 15, 2010


It's an interesting story. Like who took the photo and distributed it? It's too bad we can't discuss it here.
posted by smackfu at 11:08 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


METAFILTER IS NOT A FUCKING NEWS SITE.
posted by Afroblanco at 11:11 AM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


providing alcohol to bro minors.

YM "broners." HTH.
posted by Nothing... and like it at 11:11 AM on June 15, 2010


You want Hannah Montana panties?

Here you go.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:12 AM on June 15, 2010


I barely know who Miley Cyrus is. I have no idea who Perez Hilton is.

I win.
posted by neuron at 11:15 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Pictures of nude children aren't pornography as it's defined in US law. That isn't a question of 'fine print', it's right there in the statute. If they were much art of the last thousand years would be outlawed, including the cupids on the walls of the US Supreme Court, and a lot of people's family albums -- we might get to that point, but I hope I don't get to see it.

I don't think there is any way to see up-skirt shots as anything but prurient, but even that doesn't make it pornography. But I don't think we need to name it porn in order to find this stuff reprehensible, do we? With really candid shots, the invasion of privacy and degradation of being used like that, is plenty to condemn it.

But we have this starlet, who has had a TV show and record contract since she was about ten, and been chased by paparazzi since she was twelve, and she knows neither to keep her knickers on, nor how to get out of a car? Umm...maybe.

Anyway this post might have resulted in several good discussions; scuzz celebrity bloggers, edges of pornography laws, privacy rights; but the way the FPP was written it was more likely to only be about pubescent-pop-puppets and their predictors. Maybe some of the links could be reposted with more focus on the real issues?
posted by Some1 at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


METAFILTER IS NOT A FUCKING NEWS SITE.

Your use of all caps intrigues me.
posted by smackfu at 11:33 AM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


Don't forget this dreck that featured pictures of a potentially underaged nude.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:36 AM on June 15, 2010


This just in -- Miley Cyrus: ‘I’m not trying to be slutty’.
posted by ericb at 12:17 PM on June 15, 2010


I have no idea who Perez Hilton is.

I've seen the name everywhere but never really cared enough to dig in and find out who he is. This thread inspired me to change that.

Now I kind of wish I hadn't, because he seems a lot like a fame-whore scumbag, and some of my brain is now dedicated to knowing that.
posted by quin at 12:24 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


If you read all the comments, it seems like people were pretty unanimous in feeling like it was a bad post.

This is not a good post for MetaFilter.

This is a stupid post and it should be removed. Metafilter is too good for this low crap.

I logged in from work just so I could flag this post.

Sentiments and comments such as the above are not helpful, because when you state an opinion without explaining it, you have only succeeded in imposing a tautology upon other people. It would be much more effective, methinks, if we all took the effort to turn emotions into actual ideas. So, for the sake of the community, can we please all strive to be more articulate ? Thanks and much love.
posted by polymodus at 12:24 PM on June 15, 2010


If metafilter is not a fucking news site, why is there so much fucking news on metafilter? Is it possible that metafilter in fact is a fucking news site? (To wit: Is it possible that a fucking famous person fucking dies and that the fucking news of that fucking death not appear on metafilter?)
posted by found missing at 12:37 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


I MEAN IT
posted by Burhanistan at 12:40 PM on June 15, 2010


I posted something that sort of touches on these themes and issues, but does not include naked Cyruses. (Cyrii?) It does, however, have a Hilton and an upskirt photo in the galleries. :)
posted by zarq at 12:47 PM on June 15, 2010


Miley Cyrus was, if I remember correctly, criticized for taking pictures of herself in her underwear just a couple years ago.

Yep, here it is (NSFW, I should think).

And then there was the whole Vanity Fair photo shoot controversy.

And now this.

I haven't ever heard a Hannah Montan aka Miley Cyrus song that I can remember. But I now know her name because of this kind of publicity.

So it's possible that the reason Perez Hilton isn't apologizing is because the photo was leaked from Miley's own camp, who will then go on record to say that of COURSE Miley was wearing undewear and it was obviously photoshopped, while still reaping the benefits of the increased popularity.

That kind of publicity stunt wouldn't surprise me in the least.
posted by misha at 12:59 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


If anyone is still wondering who Perez Hilton is, he's the guy who asked Miss California Carrie Prejean about same-sex marriage, the answer to which question turned her into a darling of the right for a short while last year.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:02 PM on June 15, 2010


METAFILTER IS NOT A FUCKING NEWS SITE.

You're right, you're right, I'm sorry. I'll stop posting news about people fucking.
posted by davejay at 1:03 PM on June 15, 2010


I'm working up a FPP about the woman who found a Charlie Sheen-shaped Cadbury Chocolate "Nibble."
posted by xod at 1:07 PM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


METAFILTER IS NOT A FUCKING NEWS SITE.

It is, however, Fark.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:07 PM on June 15, 2010


The Nibble link endlessly reloads for me on Safari. :P
posted by zarq at 1:14 PM on June 15, 2010


shakespeherian: "
It is, however, Fark.
"

Well, that's just uncalled for.
posted by boo_radley at 1:17 PM on June 15, 2010


The Nibble link endlessly reloads for me on Safari. :P

Relentless Scots.
posted by xod at 1:18 PM on June 15, 2010


Will it be FPP worthy if Miley Cyrus presses charges? Because it looks like there is some desire to hate on Perez Hilton, although I see him more as a symptom of our society than a disease.
posted by mccarty.tim at 1:38 PM on June 15, 2010


If metafilter is not a fucking news site, why is there so much fucking news on metafilter?

Possibly as a side effect. And because some people don't take the site's mission seriously.

The purpose of Metafilter is to showcase the best of the web. Not "the best of they're talking about this everywhere else, and I wanted to see how the community felt about it" or "the best of I haven't seen anyone else talking about this, and I wanted to see how the community felt about it."

There is a plethora of sites that exist specifically to discuss shit like this. In fact, when I tell people about MeFi -- and why it's qualitatively different from better-known sites like Digg and Reddit -- one of the main differentiators I point out is that, unlike those other sites, METAFILTER IS NOT A FUCKING NEWS SITE.

Anyway, I was really glad to see this post pooper-scooped off the front page. Just this morning, I was getting ready to send a link to MeFi to one of my friends, who I've been telling about the site for a while. When I saw this turdalurpagus at the top of the page, I thought, "yeah, better wait until this scrolls down the page a bit," lest she get the wrong idea about the site.
posted by Afroblanco at 1:45 PM on June 15, 2010 [5 favorites]


I haven't ever heard a Hannah Montan aka Miley Cyrus song that I can remember. But I now know her name because of this kind of publicity.

You mean you haven't been assailed by this in every store and out every open window? Do you even live in America? Also and I hate to admit it, but that line of tight tops that Max Azria did for her (that are currently being clearanced at $.50/gross at WalMart) are actually really cute.
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:52 PM on June 15, 2010


Man, when I first head that Party in The USA Song, without even knowing who was singing it, I thought to myself, "Is this really music that adults listen to?"
posted by Afroblanco at 1:54 PM on June 15, 2010


If MeFi isn't a news site, why do people always bitch about links to old writing?
posted by Joe Beese at 1:54 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


There was a long time period where Miley Cyrus had no pop radio play but was massive in concerts, but that time has passed. Both of these songs have gotten a lot of airplay:

See You Again
Can't Be Tamed (current single)
posted by smackfu at 1:57 PM on June 15, 2010


bWill it be FPP worthy if Miley Cyrus presses charges? Because it looks like there is some desire to hate on Perez Hilton, although I see him more as a symptom of our society than a disease.

I think of him more as an example of the worst humanity has to offer. Many folks feed into his compassionless schtick by clicking through to his site, fulfilling a primal urge to rubberneck.
posted by zarq at 1:59 PM on June 15, 2010


Are they going to nuke Perez Hilton from orbit? Like they do in AKIRA!
posted by chunking express at 2:01 PM on June 15, 2010


If you see a bright spot filled with debris floating upward I'd start running.
posted by Babblesort at 2:04 PM on June 15, 2010


She sang this song called Party in the USA. That sucked, but there is a Biggie remix, so she can't be all bad.

Also, check out this old school Biggie freestyle from when he was 17. Man, that dude was awesome.
posted by chunking express at 2:05 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


> The more I think about it, the more I think widespread nudism would solve a hell of a lot of problems in this country.

I heard that. See you at Pride on the 27th!
posted by heyho at 2:06 PM on June 15, 2010


> I thought to myself, "Is this really music that adults listen to?"

*noddin' my head like yeah*
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:12 PM on June 15, 2010 [3 favorites]


Misha sez: So it's possible that the reason Perez Hilton isn't apologizing is because the photo was leaked from Miley's own camp, who will then go on record to say that of COURSE Miley was wearing undewear and it was obviously photoshopped, while still reaping the benefits of the increased popularity.

FTW. [SFW, via Perez Hilton's site (well, someone has to go follow up...)]
posted by chavenet at 2:24 PM on June 15, 2010


Do we actually know that the original photo showed a naked vulva? Maybe she was wearing panties after all but it was still easy to see things so he later retracted it?
posted by Burhanistan at 2:38 PM on June 15, 2010


found missing: “If metafilter is not a fucking news site, why is there so much fucking news on metafilter? Is it possible that metafilter in fact is a fucking news site?”

The problem is that there's some confusion on this point. Metafilter is certainly not a fucking news site. It is, however, very much a fucking news site.
posted by koeselitz at 3:05 PM on June 15, 2010


The purpose of Metafilter is to showcase the best of the web.

No, it's not. We've had this conversation a million times by now.

"A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."

That post meets all 3 criteria for me. No question.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:38 PM on June 15, 2010


> The more I think about it, the more I think widespread nudism would solve a hell of a lot of problems in this country.

Go for it, I have the eyebleach ready.
posted by jfuller at 3:50 PM on June 15, 2010


That post meets all 3 criteria for me. No question.

Okay, what am I thinking. BRING ON THE CRASS CELEBRITY BULLSHIT.
posted by Afroblanco at 3:53 PM on June 15, 2010 [2 favorites]


That post meets all 3 criteria for me. No question.

I don't think we're arguing that the post didn't meet minimum standards, which is really what those three things are.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:02 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's good to hold ourselves to a higher standard. But sometimes the conversation turns to 'crass celebrity bullshit' and LOLCELEBRITEENZ and if we want to steer it elsewhere, nothing is stopping us from trying.
The post was poorly presented. But if it had stayed, I think someone could have picked up on Mathowie's comment (had it been made there) and turned it into an interesting discussion. It happened in the recent Erykah Badu naked in Dallas post.
posted by zarq at 4:07 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Don't show my crotch, my achy breaky crotch....

I'm sooo sorry
posted by jonmc at 5:39 PM on June 15, 2010


Yeah this is the discussion I was hoping for, and was disappointed to see all the early comments were everyone seeing how quickly they could muster up their righteous indignation.

Yeah, but here’s the thing.

Here’s what you DID say:

"Miley Cyrus upskirt shot: Child porn?" "Blogger Perez Hilton posts a link to an alleged upskirt photo of the 17-year-old -- and could face serious charges." The photo in question has since been yanked down, but the image is allegedly of Cyrus climbing out of a car wearing a dress and no underwear. Censored up-skirt image. More on Perez and up-skirt shots in this Guardian article: He pioneered upskirt shots. Can we pay a bigger tribute?

Here’s how you COULD have said it:

Blogger Perez Hilton posted a shot he claims is an upskirt photo – and got slammed with a child porn suit. Prosecution claims it’s child porn based on Perez’s claims that the photo – a shot of a young woman exiting a car – was of underage starlet Miley Cyrus, and that you could see she wasn’t wearing underwear. However, Perez’s lawyer claims that [insert his lawyer’s statement here].

The first has a bit of a celebrity-gossip tone, but the second focuses more on the legalese of the issue. (And seriously, the Guardian link doesn't add anything to the legal discussion, which makes it sound like you're not really here to talk about the legalese at all.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:29 PM on June 15, 2010


toodleydoodley, nope, I don't recognize the names of those songs, but I don't want to click through to them to listen just to confirm.

To be fair, I don't listen to a lot of pop stations in my car--I listen to my iPod or audiobooks or the one and only liberal talk radio station I can tune into (I live in the Bible Belt, so it's a welcome respite).

I have heard Justin Bieber, but that's only because my son's friends put the song on his iPhone as a joke.
posted by misha at 6:32 PM on June 15, 2010


Do we actually know that the original photo showed a naked vulva? Maybe she was wearing panties after all but it was still easy to see things so he later retracted it?

O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; No more of that.
posted by crunchland at 7:15 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


The first has a bit of a celebrity-gossip tone, but the second focuses more on the legalese of the issue. (And seriously, the Guardian link doesn't add anything to the legal discussion, which makes it sound like you're not really here to talk about the legalese at all.)

To be clear, I wasn't the original poster of the thread (I didn't even comment in in it).

I understand and agree with what you're saying, but a bad post doesn't mean that everyone needs to comment on how bad it is. That's what flagging is for. Perhaps I'm just remembering the site when it was much smaller and you didn't have the rush at the beginning, but plenty of poor posts turned into interesting discussions. I think this could have been one of them.

I don't know for whatever reason the "This is a terrible post" too-cool-for-school comments just sort of give off bad vibes. If it is bad, flag it and it'll get deleted. If it stays up that's what Metatalk is for. How hard can it be?
posted by geoff. at 7:16 PM on June 15, 2010 [1 favorite]


Don't show my crotch, my achy breaky crotch....

I'm sooo sorry
posted by jonmc


You're so going to hell for that one.

Unless you're like me. I did something about 14 years ago I'm going to hell for, so it doesn't matter what I do now. But I still try and be nice anyways, no sense making it a hell on earth.
posted by marxchivist at 7:19 PM on June 15, 2010


Nah, just purgatory. Catholic, you know.
posted by jonmc at 7:32 PM on June 15, 2010


Think less of me if you will, but I saw this on 4chan on Monday night and even there the widespread opinion was that it was a fake and a fairly obvious shop. If so, the only unusual thing here is that PH posted it; pornographic fakes of celebrities (underage or no) are par for the course at sites like 4chan.

toodleydoodley: You mean you haven't been assailed by this in every store and out every open window? Do you even live in America?

You know you're on the Internet, right?
posted by stinkycheese at 1:54 AM on June 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


Perez Hilton?

He's still around?
posted by bwg at 7:19 AM on June 16, 2010


I'm flattered that you quoted me, mrgrimm. And I stand by the comment: Metafilter is indeed too good for that low crap.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:35 AM on June 16, 2010 [1 favorite]


I haven't ever heard a Hannah Montan aka Miley Cyrus song that I can remember.
Be thankful. I could say the same until the fateful night when I heard that mfing "Party in the USA" song at a bar one fateful night in January 2010. Ugh.

Let's all face it, Perez ain't gonna get shit done to him for this beyond a slap on the wrist. As much as he's a lame doucher, that LA defense attorney is being sensationalistic. When an attorney speaks with that much certainty with such little information, you know they're full of shit.
posted by ishotjr at 3:02 PM on June 16, 2010


*as much as Perez is a lame doucher [and we all want to see him get in trouble],
posted by ishotjr at 3:03 PM on June 16, 2010


Perez Hilton: confirmed Rape Apologist. There's no difference between his excuses for posting child porn and the standard "she was asking for it with the was she was dressed" defense.
posted by Juicy Avenger at 2:19 AM on June 19, 2010


« Older Fighty gladiator thunderdome   |   Comic Sans, Bitch(en) Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments