Ha - exactly. My thought when reading the above story:

Yeah, takes balls to go around perpetuating (debunked) rumors.

He’s a straight (successful) white guy. Of course everyone on this site is going to believe (and perpetuate) whatever accusations are made against him by some anonymous, uninvolved third-party rando. That’s how it works here.

This is a celebrity gossip site that trades in speculation, criticism, and ridicule of people’s personal lives and choices, etc. - this is par for the course.

Give it a rest. Seriously.

Well, yes - I would say that showing young people (who I assume make up a significant portion of her fan base) - or anyone, really - that you can get the attention you want by being disingenuous / lying is a problem.

No, it is not obvious they CHOSE to not charge her or that they could have. Nothing in the story implies that either is a crime. You need some reading comprehension skills.

Your question makes no sense - she wasn’t charged with anything relating to the fetus (as the text you quoted indicates).

Believe it or not, hangovers don’t require getting “shitfaced drunk” the night before.

Congratulations on your ability to look up words in the dictionary. Is there a particular reason you posted this in response to my comment?

“Well, let’s see if getting called out by someone with 4 million followers changes this guy’s perspective on privacy.”

Let me clarify, since you are having such difficulty: the first three paragraphs of your comment amount to an exercise in nitpicking word choice, and whether or not a stranger (i.e. someone you don’t know) could identify you (or whether you would say you “know” someone you have only ever seen once in your life in…

Your entire comment / point is about word choice, and whether or not a stranger (i.e. someone you don’t know) could identify you (or whether you would say you “know” someone you have only ever seen once in your life in passing) is entirely relevant.

I already have. Those were rhetorical questions.

“words can have different meaning in different contexts”

If you and a friend were out in public and saw a complete stranger (someone you don’t know and that you had never seen before in your life and were not even aware existed) with, say, a dog, and your friend later asked you, “Hey - do you know that person with the dog that we saw?”, would your answer be “yes”?

That a stranger couldn’t identify you from an obscured photo does not mean that a stranger could not identify you at all no matter what, even from a “full in picture of your face”. I’m not sure why this is such a difficult thing for you to understand.