I agree, the young lady answered the Q with her views on the subject, as she had every right to do. I think the conflict with the Miss Universe organization was when Miss Prejean filled out the questionnaire, before the pageant, asking if she had ever had nude or inappropriate pictures taken, and she answered no, then pictures she had taken when 17 showed up.
I agree with you about Trump. this man is a publicity whore. Dottie

You could be right, Mylab. It's a lot of "to do" about nothin' IMHO.

Donald Trump has owned the Miss America Pageant for several (if not many) years now. It's a well-known fact. He doesn't have to do anything to "sell" the pageant or anything having to do with it.

Carrie Prejean violated the terms of the contract when she put down a false answer on the questionnaire (re: the photos). She has further violated her contract by making appearances for an organization against equal rights for marriage.

Who owns what and personal feelings about any one involved is, to me, unimportant.

Carrie Prejean was untruthful and therefore should have been disqualified.

Sue

Yes, Donald owns the Miss America pagent and the fact is that their ratings were seriously slipping in the past. As we all know, the commercial sponsers pay more for commercials if the program has high viewership.

I'm not surprised she got a loaded question from Perez Hilton. Even though I'm not threatened by gay marriage I applaud her for answering the way SHE believes. But as far as the racy photos, she was not truthful to the pagent operators before the pagent. Therefore, for that reason I think she should have been disqualified.

But now we go back to Trump and the ratings and we can see why she wasn't. It wouldn't surprise me if they cut out the questions in the future pagents and went straight to pole dancing!

The Donald is a Pompous, arrogant jerk. He is also an extremely smart man. He is loving the much needed publicity that this has given the pageant and has even admitted it on several interviews.

Now, as far as the photos go, I guess it all depends on what is considered racy. I think she showed a nipple. OMG!
That's racy? I don't think so.
Obviously the pageant officials and the Donald himself, agreed and chose to let her keep her crown.

I agree with Mylab. This was manipulation at it's finest.

I haven't seen the pictures of her but from what i've read they are not much more revealing than the way they parade them in frot of the judges. I think the whole pageant is a joke now...they need to be rid of it. I think she answered the question with her views and opinions, if they didn;t want to hear that answere they shouldn't haver ask that question.

I am pretty sure that Perez Hilton was asked to ask that question, simply to stir up a controversy in the media. Perez Hilton's claim to fame is that he writes a Hollywood gossip blog, he is a big nobody. And he will do and say anything for attention (if you don't believe me go read his website). In fact, the only reason for him to be picked as a judge is probably because he agreed to ask the question.

I think the whole media blitz afterwards was stirred up, probably also by Mr. Trump, to generate lots of press and media coverage for the pageant, which no one watches anymore. The ratings have been falling for years.

Ms. Prejean is simply a pawn in Mr. Trump's quest for more attention and cash. I do not agree with her views on marriage, but I do feel sorry that she was used as a pawn in this manner and is apparently not even aware of it.

I think that she didn't lose her crown (she got a crown for second place?!?) because if she did, the attention would quickly fade after a week or two. By keeping her on, she might slip up again and slam back into the news. More free publicity. Also, she will do personal appearances which benefit the Trump owned pagent. More free publicity.
A win-win situation for Trump and Prejean.

I agree, in the big picture, those pictures are small potatoes.

However, it does show that even at 17, she was willing to bare her physical assets to male eyes in order to have a better chance to get what she wanted at the time.

And, unless I'm dim, girls don't just peel clothes off and show the boobies very suddenly - they work up to that willing behavior, especially when they know that adults are going to be watching and publishing might get done (which was the point in the first place.) She and her friend figured out what might work (showing her boobs and provocative posing) and then used it.

I don't think she just suddenly did this out of desperation for modeling work, she wasn't a nice young christian girl who "made a mistake" on the spur of the moment. This is not the type of sudden mistakes girls make, they build up to this behavior. She certainly knew what she was doing in the posing.

If there is nothing wrong with that, then we need to take the morals clause out of the contract. If they still want the morals clause, then they need to abide by that.

I'm a bit disturbed at the message the Donald is sending.

Preteens (just a very few years younger than she was when she allowed the pics to be taken) are the big audience who watch this and they are certainly getting a message about life that simply won't apply to them. Usually when you break a contract, you lose what you intended to gain, that is the whole point of having a contract in the first place. Unless you are unusually beautiful, then - maybe not. Depending upon what you are willing to do with that beauty.

Last year it was very bad behavior and excessive alcohol intake from the winner - remember? There is a trend here.......it's time to just allow these pagents to die. they no longer have any place in this world.

I do agree with Magic on one thing - it's not a huge stretch between exposing her boobs and having the tiny bathing suit strut they all must participate in and do so, willingly. Looks and body is what this spectacle is all about. The one who has the best of both wins unless they make a huge gaff.

For THIS so many women in the 60s and on tried to change the way the women viewed and treated us?!?

I'm not saying that Prejean is a terrible person. It takes far worse behavior than this to qualify (to me) to be a terrible person and it takes a longer period of time in a person's life for that type of generalization to come about. She is very young still, but very savvy, too, for a woman so young.

I am saying that she certainly isn't of the character of what this big show declares itself to be promoting and for young girls to aspire to. The whole message they are declaring has become very odd and self serving, indeed.

A friend did not take those pictures, a famous photographer did. She named him on the today show this morning but the name escapes me right now. She was taking the pictures for her modeling portfolio. She didn't "expose her boobs". She had a vest on and it was just a little to far over and exposed a nipple. Was that done on purpose or was it an accident? Who knows. I have seen more exposure on the 13-year-olds that walk the Malls.

Has anyone seen the pics? They are beautiful and so is she.

With all the things in this world that people could get in an uproar about, this is certainly not one of them. I say Leave the poor girl alone.

Who cares if it's a woman's nipple or a man's! I have NEVER been able to figure out the difference in mentality on showing a nipple. People let their rolls of fat hang out all the time - I think a nipple is much more attractive than a fat person with flab hanging out!

I think Donald Trump did the right thing in supporting her!!!

When this whole thing first started I was all for her, if those are her feelings then she was right in speaking her mind about her feelings. I don't think that should be held against her anymore than her race or religion. But I do think her lies about the photos should have cost her the crown.

Watching her this morning I found myself thinking that butter wouldn't melt in her mouth. And as for the Donald...I have not time for him nor his. He's a whore alright, and I won't limit it to publicity.

What I don't understand, and please someone enlighten me. Miss Prejean didn't win the Miss USA title (she came in first runner-up) Wasn't it her Miss California crown in jeopardy? Because she lied about the photos in her application, interview or something. Just what does the publicity whore, Trump have to do with that title? Or does he own the state pageants too. Just wondering, even though in the grand scheme of things this whole subject isn't worth diddly-squat . LOL Dottie

Yes it was the Miss California crown that was at stake. I assumed the Trump does own the state pageants too since they all lead up to the Miss USA pageant.

Lynn, I guess what I'm saying is maybe she didn't consider the photos 'racey'. I sure didn't. Like someone else said, they were no more racey than you would see in any lingerie catalog.

I also think that no matter how you look at it, it's political punishment for her answer.

Did y'all see where the state pageant director,Shanna Moakler, of California resigned today because of the Donalds decision?
She said she no longer believed in the pageant.

"Moakler has appeared in her own ad supporting gay rights, shooting a print ad on April 28 that slammed Proposition 8, the initiative that banned gay marriage in California."

That makes it pretty obvious to me.

I guess we would have to see what terminology in the contract is to know whether she violated it or not, Magic. You are right, it is open to interpretation. It appears that the Donald does own all the rights to all the state competitions as well.

I really think that for the most part, as already stated, the time for the pageants is gone. I never watched them even as a teen, sure not going to do it now.

The terms of the contract include revealing anything you did (or that can be interpreted that you did) that is "questionable" or "immoral" and, apparently, semi-nude photos fall into that category. She out-and-out lied and said she had never had any such photos done. Whether or not the photos are tasteful; whether or not she is beautiful in the photos; whether or not the photos were taken by a friend or a professional photographer -- it doesn't matter. What matters is that SHE LIED.

That was all prior to being in the pageant.

There is also a clause in the contract that prohibits her from making any appearances at or on behalf of ANY group or entity without prior notification to and approval by the pageant organization. Since the Miss USA pageant, she has made numerous appearances at and on behalf of organizations against gay marriage. Whether or not one is for or against equal rights for gays is not the point. The point is she did not notify the pageant officials in advance of the appearances, she did not obtain approval from the pageant officials to attend the appearances. SHE VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.

It's not a matter of beauty or of beliefs. It is a matter of law.

"The terms of the contract include revealing anything you did (or that can be interpreted that you did) that is "questionable" or "immoral" and, apparently, semi-nude photos fall into that category."

That is exactly the point. Who is doing the interpretation?

I saw nothing wrong with the photos and neither did she obviously.

Apparently the Donald didn't see anything wrong the photos either and said as much.So where is the lie?

I have not read the contract since I don't have access to it and I think I can assume you haven't either. A contract is a legal binding agreement between two parties and if neither party feels it was violated (which obviously is the case) then there is no violation!

And by the way, those photo's were NEVER published until the pageant flap and the photographer then decided to release them without her permission.

Didn't the photographer violate a contract by doing that?

Should everyone be concerned about every single photo taken of them in their lifetime?

This whole thing is nothing but a smear campaign because they don't agree with her opinion.

Magic, I'm fairly certain the contract spelled out what type of photos -- "partially clothed" -- that sort of thing. Those photos certainly fall into that category, no matter whether you think they're artistic or pornographic.

And, you are completely ignoring the contract violation as pertains to her personal appearances.

You're letting your feelings against equal rights cloud your perception of the legal issues. The contract's prohibition against unauthorized personal appearances isn't just prohibiting personal appearances for or against civil rights. It's a prohibition against ANY personal appearance in favor of or against ANY issue or cause; whether it's gay rights, animal rights, global warming, support of cancer research, etc.

Interpretation. Another contestant (can't remember who) had posed for much raceyer (sp?) photos than Miss CA. and The board didn't have a problem with those.Seems to me it's selective interpretation.

And I am not ignoring contract violations of any kind and I am not against equal rights. That's the whole point.SHE is being attacked because of her beliefs, whether You or I agree with them or not, she has a right to her opinion.

A legal contract is a contract between two entities. IF neither party objects to the actions of the other, then there is no violation, period. If Donald Trump does not object to or contest her actions then no violation exists. Basic contract law.