Vanessa Hudgens Nude Scandal! Uh Oh.

[yitbos96bb]

If you have seen the pix she looks like she is under 18 in them to me. I know I am just judging her by the appearance but she looked a lot different to me then she does now. I think (JMHO) that she did them before HSM fame and when she was a lot more naive about being a celeb and what goes along with it! My guess is she was 16 at the oldest.

Um... No... Let's use some logic on this...

If she was a minor, then it would have made this entire thing very easy for her to deal with. Posting the picture would be a crime and nearly every site would have taken it down immediately. The Justice Department under Bush has been prosecuting child pornography very zealously (so there is ONE thing that I think he administration is doing) and there would be arrests of people right now. All she would have had to say was she took it of herself when she was underage and the photo, much like the under age Traci Lords videos, would for the most part disappear. It would have made the handling of this very easy for her.

Now as to you saying she looks 16... Well, how many times have you seen this girl in person as a normal girl... without makeup, or with a little makeup in casual attire. I'm pretty willing to bet the number is 0. She looks different in the pic BECAUSE SHE HASN'T BEEN MADE UP FOR TV. Remember, they DO use heavy amounts of makeup for film and TV, plus since HDTV captures a lot of blemishes (much to Cameron Diaz's horror) most Hollywood people going on camera for Awards shows get made up as well. This is the reason you think she looks younger than when you have seen her on tv.

Lets use logic before we accuse people of crimes.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Nope, I meant December 2005--Debbie6221 said she thought Vanessa was 16 tops at the time.

Debbie doesn't know what she is talking about.

 

[ChrisFL]

Um... No... Let's use some logic on this...

If she was a minor, then it would have made this entire thing very easy for her to deal with. Posting the picture would be a crime and nearly every site would have taken it down immediately. The Justice Department under Bush has been prosecuting child pornography very zealously (so there is ONE thing that I think he administration is doing) and there would be arrests of people right now. All she would have had to say was she took it of herself when she was underage and the photo, much like the under age Traci Lords videos, would for the most part disappear. It would have made the handling of this very easy for her.

Now as to you saying she looks 16... Well, how many times have you seen this girl in person as a normal girl... without makeup, or with a little makeup in casual attire. I'm pretty willing to bet the number is 0. She looks different in the pic BECAUSE SHE HASN'T BEEN MADE UP FOR TV. Remember, they DO use heavy amounts of makeup for film and TV, plus since HDTV captures a lot of blemishes (much to Cameron Diaz's horror) most Hollywood people going on camera for Awards shows get made up as well. This is the reason you think she looks younger than when you have seen her on tv.

Lets use logic before we accuse people of crimes.

the difference is that it isn't considered 'pornography' if it's just a nude image

 

[yitbos96bb]

the difference is that it isn't considered 'pornography' if it's just a nude image

IT'S STILL ILLEGAL IF SHE IS UNDER 18!!!!

Are you seriously suggesting a nude photo of an underage person would be anything but illegal? Call it Pornography or nude image or whatever, its STILL ILLEGAL! Case closed. She was 18, her reps would be forcing its removal if she was under age.

 

[rwrocksme]

I wonder what Zach's reaction has been to all of this????

 

[EUROPACL]

the difference is that it isn't considered 'pornography' if it's just a nude image

False...time to clean your harddrive.

 

[ChrisFL]

False...time to clean your harddrive.

what are you implying? I've seen the picture, I have no idea how old she is in it, I can clean the browser cache just the same however

 

[EUROPACL]

what are you implying? I've seen the picture, I have no idea how old she is in it, I can clean the browser cache just the same however

I was implying that you didn't know that nude photos of underage childern are illegal.

 

[ChrisFL]

I was implying that you didn't know that nude photos of underage childern are illegal.

I fail to see how confusion over the letter of the law implies Im participating as such

So let's assume that is correct, that Vanessa's pic is found to be her under age 18, then anyone who has viewed this photo is now a criminal, is that correct? That would be a LOT of people.

 

[whjoyjr]

I fail to see how confusion over the letter of the law implies Im participating as such

So let's assume that is correct, that Vanessa's pic is found to be her under age 18, then anyone who has viewed this photo is now a criminal, is that correct? That would be a LOT of people.

Remember Traci Lords?

 

[EUROPACL]

I fail to see how confusion over the letter of the law implies Im participating as such

So let's assume that is correct, that Vanessa's pic is found to be her under age 18, then anyone who has viewed this photo is now a criminal, is that correct? That would be a LOT of people.

Calm down and take a deep breath it was a joke.

...and if you look back you will see that point was brought up...if she was under 18 her lawyers could have had them kept out of print.

 

[raidermatt]

They could force them to be taken down, which I saw at least one site claim they were asked to do, though they didn't give the exact reason.

 

[scottnorth]

Friends,

A simplified synopsis from a law enforcement perspective. (please visit the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's website for a better understanding) The Supreme Court of the United States has maintained their ruling that nudity does not equal pornography. This concept applies to all ages under the somewhat famous quote arising from the high court's decision: "nudity, without more." In other words for something (a picture, video) to cross the line into pornography, it must be sexually exploitive of genetalia or depict or suggest sexual activity. Even when a person who is under the age of 18 is shown nude in a movie or a picture, it does not, in and of itself constitute pornography.

Here are two examples:

1. Brooke Shields starred in a mainstreem movie titled "Pretty Baby" in the 1980s, Brooke portrayed a child prostitute and appeared in the nude throughout this film. This film is considered educational and artistic and enjoys the protections afforded by the United States Constitution.

2. Just yesterday, on ABC (Disney), America's Funniest Videos aired a clip of a young female (3 years old or so) with a coin stuck inside her buttcrack. They showed her naked butt and her chest area. Surely most of us (aside from the truely depraved in our society) would consider this a cute video and not as some sort of sexual turn-on.

I have to agree that if Huggins were under the age of 18, her picture would not continue to be posted on certain legitimate websites for a variety of reasons, the first being the consent to her photograph being taken in a private area. If her picture is simply contains "nudity, without more," and she was under 18, her parents would have had to consent to the photograph being taken and consent to its release.

Unfortunately, there are many situations in society where children are exploited sexually behind closed doors from family members, friends and as well as from smut peddlers via the internet.

If you would like to learn more about protecting children from sexual abuse, I urge you to visit the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's website, a collaberative effort between Federal, State, and Local law enforcement.

-Scott

 

[EUROPACL]

No offense to your "law enforcement perspective" but I'll stick with the plan of not having naked photos of kids on my computer.

 

[DancingBear]

The Supreme Court of the United States has maintained their ruling that nudity does not equal pornography.

The Supreme Court doesn't make rulings about what constitutes pornography. You mean obscenity.

 

[scottnorth]

EUROPACL & DANCING BEAR,

I agree with both of you.

-Scott

 

[nickeymouse]

Did any one hear about Hanah Montanna...




The rumor is she's pregent!!!!!!!

 

[yitbos96bb]

Did any one hear about Hanah Montanna...




The rumor is she's pregent!!!!!!!

Did you hear that she's... really a man, BABY... Shagadelic...

Seriously, no, she isn't pregnant. Her dad is WAY to redneck, so if she WAS, I have a feeling we'd be hearing a Billy Ray Cyrus went achey breaky on some kid. The article was a fake one. It actually impresses me to hear how well her parents are raising her and that her dad isn't letting her go wild with the money, etc. He acts like a parent should, unlike Britney's or Lindsay's parents did for them (and don't get me started on the absenteeism of those who spawned Paris Hilton, they aren't fit to even be called parents.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20058394,00.html

Here is the denial.

 

[nickeymouse]

Did you hear that she's... really a man, BABY... Shagadelic...

Seriously, no, she isn't pregnant. Her dad is WAY to redneck, so if she WAS, I have a feeling we'd be hearing a Billy Ray Cyrus went achey breaky on some kid. The article was a fake one. It actually impresses me to hear how well her parents are raising her and that her dad isn't letting her go wild with the money, etc. He acts like a parent should, unlike Britney's or Lindsay's parents did for them (and don't get me started on the absenteeism of those who spawned Paris Hilton, they aren't fit to even be called parents.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20058394,00.html

Here is the denial.

Sorry!!! Just a rumor!!! Thank Mickey it's not true!!!!!