I think it is totally comparable. She wanted to take those pictures just as homosexuals want to be in an open union. I guess the irony lies in the fact that she now knows what it's like for people to condemn her actions. Not only does she get zero sympathy from me, I actually laugh at her. And I'm sorry, but I don't see the gaping hole, maybe I'm just obtuse in this instance.

 

I have zero issues with what she said. In the original thread I applauded her for saying what she believed.

 

Ok, fair enough. You and I have a vastly different understanding of the word "condemn." But you support their right to retaliate against her for her voicing of her opinion, by releasing protected medical information and leaking unprotected photos.

 

That is fine.

 

So, in retaliation for your opinion that we should legalize marijuana, I as your lawyer tell the police that you've got a marijuana grow on your farm. That, of course, is fair because now you know what its like to be condemned for your views.

 

In retaliation for you expressing your opinion that gay marriage should be legalized, I as your neighbor release to the newspaper that you are afflicted with incurable venereal diseases, which the paper prints. After all whats fair is fair, now you know what its like to be condemned for reckless behavior.

 

Or, (in something more akin to Ms. Prejean's situation since titillating photos have little or nothing to do with the gay union issue), you express your opinion that you are opposed to any regulation of business and that bank regulators are strangling the industry, and in retaliation I as your next-door neighbor release credit card statements you let me look at in confidence to the press that show large numbers of calls to phone sex lines and for daily purchases of narcotic medications. After all, you're addicted to pain pills and a pervert, now you know what it feels like to be condemned.

 

What's fair is fair, right?

Ok, fair enough. You and I have a vastly different understanding of the word "condemn." But you support their right to retaliate against her for her voicing of her opinion, by releasing protected medical information and leaking unprotected photos.

 

That is fine.

 

So, in retaliation for your opinion that we should legalize marijuana, I as your lawyer tell the police that you've got a marijuana grow on your farm. That, of course, is fair because now you know what its like to be condemned for your views.

 

In retaliation for you expressing your opinion that gay marriage should be legalized, I as your neighbor release to the newspaper that you are afflicted with incurable venereal diseases, which the paper prints. After all whats fair is fair, now you know what its like to be condemned for reckless behavior.

 

Or, (in something more akin to Ms. Prejean's situation since titillating photos have little or nothing to do with the gay union issue), you express your opinion that you are opposed to any regulation of business and that bank regulators are strangling the industry, and in retaliation I as your next-door neighbor release credit card statements you let me look at in confidence to the press that show large numbers of calls to phone sex lines and for daily purchases of narcotic medications. After all, you're addicted to pain pills and a pervert, now you know what it feels like to be condemned.

 

What's fair is fair, right?

I didn't say it was right. It's just funny. She tries to take a high moral stance and now stuff is leaked that would cause people to question her morals.

 

I see the logic behind what you are saying, but without knowing more about the pictures, I have a hard time refuting it. And those kind of things happen all the time. They aren't necessarily right, but they happen. People should be very careful when casting stones if said people happen to live in a glass house.

 

Here is my understanding of the situation. She took the picturse in an attempt to break through in the modeling industry. I would assume that in the contract these pictures are the property of the agency that took them. So nothing illegal was done. But without being well versed in the legality of it I could be wrong. Personally, I find nothing wrong with the pictures ( I actually find a lot right with them), her promoting her stance on gay marriage, or gay marriage itself. I just find the whole situation funny that right after the incident people were championing her morals and beliefs, then days later pictures like this come out. When we both know that many of the people who were on her side about her stance are very against pictures of that nature.

 

So yes, I find this funny and ironic. But what is funny and ironic isn't necessarily what's right. Sometimes you just have to accept the world you live in and in this world if you have skeletons in your closet they are going to come out.

I read the contract the other day but can't seem to find it now. I recall a clause about motion pictures, but not photographs. Additionally, I'm not sure these photos would qualify as topless.

 

BTW could she claim that the breasts shown in the pictures are not the breasts she has now nor had at the time of her crowning?

BTW could she claim that the breasts shown in the pictures are not the breasts she has now nor had at the time of her crowning?

 

That is just uncalled for. Does that have anything to do with the thread?:irked:

That is just uncalled for. Does that have anything to do with the thread?:irked:

 

Sure it does, Les.

 

One of the claims is that she violated her contract by showing her breasts. A good lawyer could claim that those breasts no longer exist and have been replaced with unseen breasts.

 

It would certainly seem worth a try if she needs to defend herself.

 

Secondarily, its also topical as its part of the story and it has been discussed in this very thread.

 

Uncalled for would be if I mentioned how her brother is now trying to launch a career based off of this controversy.

I didn't say it was right. It's just funny. She tries to take a high moral stance and now stuff is leaked that would cause people to question her morals.

 

I see the logic behind what you are saying, but without knowing more about the pictures, I have a hard time refuting it. And those kind of things happen all the time. They aren't necessarily right, but they happen. People should be very careful when casting stones if said people happen to live in a glass house.

 

Here is my understanding of the situation. She took the picturse in an attempt to break through in the modeling industry. I would assume that in the contract these pictures are the property of the agency that took them. So nothing illegal was done. But without being well versed in the legality of it I could be wrong. Personally, I find nothing wrong with the pictures ( I actually find a lot right with them), her promoting her stance on gay marriage, or gay marriage itself. I just find the whole situation funny that right after the incident people were championing her morals and beliefs, then days later pictures like this come out. When we both know that many of the people who were on her side about her stance are very against pictures of that nature.

 

So yes, I find this funny and ironic. But what is funny and ironic isn't necessarily what's right. Sometimes you just have to accept the world you live in and in this world if you have skeletons in your closet they are going to come out.

 

Photographers own the rights to their negatives unless they sign them away. However, they may be subject to a lawsuit for reaping profits from the use of another's image.

 

The release of the breast-augmentation information by the Miss California pageant was a gross violation of the law. If I, as an employer, have your protected medical information, I can't release it without your consent. I don't know how she proves any damages, but it was a violation of the law.

Photographers own the rights to their negatives unless they sign them away. However, they may be subject to a lawsuit for reaping profits from the use of another's image.

 

The release of the breast-augmentation information by the Miss California pageant was a gross violation of the law. If I, as an employer, have your protected medical information, I can't release it without your consent. I don't know how she proves any damages, but it was a violation of the law.

So would this be a case where a lawsuit is applicable? Wasn't the site that took the pictures the one who originally posted them up?

 

My whole argument has been towards the photo's that she willingly took. I have nothing for this and believe it was extremely wrong.

Somehow this always gets back to the Chicks.

 

If people choose to boycott anything she does, then that is their right. But here is the difference, she was ASKED a question that she answered honestly. There is not as much out cry as a lot of people share those same beliefs.

 

The Chicks "offered" their political views. I don't pay for someones CD so I can hear their political views. People boycotted them as their right, because they did not share the Chicks views.

 

The Chicks were more like Obismal running around the world apologizing for America.

 

Quit going back to the poor Chicks. I have not listened to them or purchased their music since that incident, MY RIGHT.

 

Just as it's anyone else's right to make a valid comparision. Natalie Maines, too, was asked her opinion, one in which others agreed with. They didn't put it on their CD, btw. Doesn't mean anyone has to purchase their music regardless.

 

Both groups have the right to their own opinions. People can choose to respond however they choose to any of their statements. Then people can choose to respond to those responses (such as Hilton's).

 

I agree with Clyde. The irony of the situation (defend Prejean, slam the Chicks) makes me chuckle.

Just as it's anyone else's right to make a valid comparision. Natalie Maines, too, was asked her opinion, one in which others agreed with. They didn't put it on their CD, btw. Doesn't mean anyone has to purchase their music regardless.

 

Both groups have the right to their own opinions. People can choose to respond however they choose to any of their statements. Then people can choose to respond to those responses (such as Hilton's).

 

I agree with Clyde. The irony of the situation (defend Prejean, slam the Chicks) makes me chuckle.

 

No, she made her comment during a concert overseas. She was asked about it later after the uproar started.

No, she made her comment during a concert overseas. She was asked about it later after the uproar started.

 

:thumb:

 

TB&G- In what venue was she asked about her feelings toward her President? At their concert in Europe, did a political debate break out? Or did she just offer her opinion?

 

She used her celebrity to spread her message.

:thumb:

 

TB&G- In what venue was she asked about her feelings toward her President? At their concert in Europe, did a political debate break out? Or did she just offer her opinion?

 

She used her celebrity to spread her message.

 

I'm speaking of the interview after the concert that was replayed on all of the news stations .

 

Either way, Maines and Prejean have the right to express their opinions and both have to be ready to accept the opinions of others that don't agree with them. To say that they are not in comparable situations is inaccurate.

I'm speaking of the interview after the concert that was replayed on all of the news stations .

 

Either way, Maines and Prejean have the right to express their opinions and both have to be ready to accept the opinions of others that don't agree with them. To say that they are not in comparable situations is inaccurate.

 

Maines threw herself into the situation, Prejean was pulled into it. That makes a difference in my mind. I agree they both have the right to their opinions and should be prepared for opposition.

Maines threw herself into the situation, Prejean was pulled into it. That makes a difference in my mind. I agree they both have the right to their opinions and should be prepared for opposition.

 

Prejean chose to be in a competition where she is fully aware that she will be asked questions and have to give on the spot answers. This is far from the first time that someone has been asked a controversial question in this type of setting. Prejean certainly was a willing contestant.

 

Again, so that no one loses sight, I completely support Prejean's statement. She wasn't rude or condescending in her opinion. I didn't know Perez Hilton before, and I certainly don't feel like I will miss anything if I NEVER hear of him again.

Why do we value the political opinion of a pop singer and a beauty pageant contestant? Is there nothing more irrelevant?

Why do we value the political opinion of a pop singer and a beauty pageant contestant? Is there nothing more irrelevant?

 

:lol: Very true.