(Video) Underwear or Not, Could Perez Hilton's Miley Cyrus Photo Still Be Porn?

After Perez Hilton posted photos of Miley Cyrus exiting a car, seemly showing the singer and actress without underwear, he then sent out Tweets which read, "If you are easily offended, do NOT click here" as well as adding "Warning: truly not for the easily offended!"

The photos seemed to disappear as quickly as they appeared. This didn't stop the debate about whether they met the standards for posting child pornography. Miley Cyrus is not yet 18, so she is still a minor. It is an important distinction, so much so that it may not even matter from a legal standpoint if Miley was indeed wearing underwear or not.

Los Angeles criminal attorney Jeffrey Douglas (see video on page 2), said that there was the possibility for "a world of potential trouble" for Perez Hilton. Douglas added that it didn't matter if the picture was PhotoShopped. It would still be illegal to alter the image to suggest that Cyrus was not wearing underwear.

Anyone who knowingly distributes even a link to a questionable or suggestive image can be at fault. Douglas noted that this was a "registerable offense." So, even if Miley Cyrus wore underwear, if the photos were altered to indicate otherwise, that could cross the line, breaking child porn laws.

Even though she is in the public eye and has been criticized by some for wearing skimpy clothing, as well as her suggestive dancing, the laws for child pornography still apply to those wanting to show up-the-skirt shots of Miley. At least one advertiser, ironically named The View, no longer has ads appearing on Perez Hilton's site. Hilton may have gone too far, even for those advertisers normally willing to take advantage of his site's popularity.

In his usual tongue in cheek way, Perez Hilton posted a video on his site, PerezHilton.com,where it appeared that he was only wearing a fur coat. He noted that he was wearing a fake fur coat to address a "fake controversy" about Miley Cyrus.

I couldn't see that he was wearing anything but that fur coat as he crossed and uncrossed his legs, even putting his hands over his crotch at the end of the tape, all the time apparently coming to Miley's defense, asking if people thought she would really be "that stupid" to appear in public "without panties"? But, if the photo was legal, why did Hilton remove the shot?

Hilton also noted that he liked to be controversial but he didn't want to go to jail, and he only posted the photos because she was leaving the car in an "unladylike fashion." This has not stopped Hilton from showing other females without underwear, including Britney Spears, but previous photos of female celebrities were not of minors.