Yesterday the gentlemanly blogger tweeted a revealing picture of Miley Cyrus exiting a car, apparently without any underwear. He removed the image thereafter — but what happened, happened. And given that Miley's just 17...well, that's a problem.

L.A. attorney Jeffrey Douglas, who specializes in child-pornography cases, spoke with Salon:

[Douglas says] 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.

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."

And we hear they treat gossip bloggers worst in the joint.

For his own part, Perez denies that Miley was sans skivvies. In a video-statement released on his site (which we've posted below), he says, "Do you think Miley is that stupid to go out in public without panties? Sure, I call her Slutty Cyrus, but she's not a moron!" And, "Do you think I'm stupid enough to post a photo of Miley if she's not wearing any underwear down there?" We're not going to bother answering that question.

His full defensive tirade is below. WARNING: He makes his case while wearing a fur coat without pants, so view at your own risk.

Thanks, Perez. But now it's time to shut up and lawyer up.

Miley Cyrus Upskirt Shot: Child Porn? [Salon]
Heat Is On Perez Hilton For Miley Cyrus Photo [People]