Nude photo emerges of 'High School Musical' star
 

OK, who has the goods?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/0....ap/index.html

Sig spotty

Apparently I can't post the link to the site because I don't have 30 posts.

It is located at

http://restricteddomain.com/2007/09/...musical-naked/

i guess there is a bunch of them out there

Interesting question for all those posting these things... how old is she now? How old was she then? She isn't even 19 at this point (december) so unless that picture was taken in the last 6 months, it is likely CP.

unlikely. How long have you had your interweb police badge?

She's 18.

Seen it, sucks to be here. what a dumb ass she is for admitting that it was her in the picture.

How long have you been an asshole?

The question is there: new 2257 rules. Everyone is out there posting a nude picture of a girl who is just barely 18 now, and the picture was taken at some point in the past. Does anyone have any proof of age? model release? Date of production? With the new 2257 rules, it is all needed to support the image.

It's good for her. She's too hot for Disney channel anyways, not she'll be able to get her big girl on and start making real movies.

Shes pretty cute.

Who is she?

Damnit, I was hoping they were pics of the male lead in that movie.

It's on 100,000 blogs now. Do you really think anyone cares?

As much as I hate to, I am forced to agree with you on that. Imma laugh my ass off if she was 17 in that pic.

People who make $ off that kind of celeb shit are only a cunt hair less scummy than cp people imho anyway. I've always said that.

BradM, it's okay, all the Juggcash content is on the torrents, so I guess it's okay to steal.

Unless you work for the FBI, why do you care about other people's potential 2257 problems?

Dude come on.


"Other peoples problems (sic)" are the reason we're slowly being legislated out of existence. We need MORE people minding each others business.

Maybe because we are the only one that can keep this industry clean. And following the 2257 rules are one of the things that have to be done unless we want to be hit with something harder.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 2257 apply to 'sexually explicit' content? How would this image be considered sexually explicit? A naked body is explicit? Is there a hidden dildo I'm not seeing?

I agree with what you're saying, but I think the discussion in misplaced with regards to this particular image. :2 cents:

**sigh**

double **sigh** . see my post above.

How long have you been in this fucking industry again?


(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Does Raw Alex +EVER+ shut up or is it just a constant storm of tears from that guy?

lascivious

1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
2. arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs.
3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.

Debatable. Anyway - like I said above, I think this is a misplaced discussion. Everytime Lindsay Lohan flashes her tits or hoo-ha there's gonna be 2257 docs? please.

Let's police our industry - the porn industry - and not every single nude celebrity image in the internet.

I fucking LOATHE Alex, but he brought up a valid point.

I don't think so. If it was up to me, people that post other peoples nude pictures online should be prosecuted for posting content with no license and slander.

Imagine what it does to a 18 year old girl, to have her nude pictures distributed worldwide. Why is that OK? Just because she is a star, why do people think its OK to try and ruin her like this?

If she was a porn star it could be defended, but this is a 18 year old girl that preform on the Disney Channel. This is just plain WRONG.

You're preaching to the choir, I'm just making the point. And yes, if you follow the letter of the law: If Lohan does it deliberately with the intent to arouse or gain attention of a sexual nature from it, anyone who hosts the image needs docs.

It's that simple man.

The letter of the law is only valid in so much as it is enforced. If the FBI starts enforcing 2257 on paparazzi photos and bloggers, then I would say that the FBI has some fucked up priorities :2 cents:

I'll re-iterate my statement that a 2257 discussion in this thread, about this photo, is misplaced and a waste of time and energy. We all know RawAlex just likes to stick his nose in and make know-it-all, internet-police type comments whenever he can.

I agree with you on that at any rate.

Exactly. Whoever leaked that needs to be shot.

nice.. looks like she took it herself, i wonder why ? she has a little bush going on, i wonder if that is making a come back amongst the young ones..
quality looks like phone camera..and it is def not sexual explicit so no worry on 2257.

And this from a producer.



Jesus Christ.

lesson learned = do not take any nude pics, especially if you are a cute 18 yo star of the biggest teenage movie in recent years.

i was in switzerland last weekend, 16 year old prostitutes are legal there. and now?

It's not CP automatically because there's nudity. For example, I believe the girl in American Beauty is underage, and she's shown half naked, but that isn't CP.

As for 2257, maybe the poster is from somewhere outside your great union and simply doesn't give a fuck about your 2257 laws? Could happen, you know.

Why would I care if juggcash is all over torrents? That's their responsibility.

Plus they have good content, saves me from buying a membership. :1orglaugh

I totally agree here. I don't want to and never will mind others business, but it is shit like this that will only hurt us all in the long run, and honestly that slag is not even hot imo :disgust

Anyone in America, that is. :winkwink: