Hustler: Laughing in the face of teen pregnancy

We suppose, to be fair, the idea of superimposing Jamie Lynn Spears' face on a promo poster for Juno is mildly diverting, but it's not as funny as Hustler seem to think:

Hustler's Editorial Director Bruce David says, "We just couldn't let this one slip by us! The pregnant 16-year-old sister of Britney Spears, it's too perfect! You can't make this stuff up!"

You can't make this stuff up? Yes you can - look:

Kevin Federline is going to have a baby with Lindsay Lohan

See? You can make this stuff up. It's very easy.

Although the general level of inventiveness at the magazine suggests that maybe they can't. This is the sort of thing they've done:

Kevin Federline, who is accredited as saying, "Even I wouldn't have fucked Jamie Lynn... unless there was some cash in it."

Yeah, she might be Britney Spears' sister, but she's still a sixteen year old girl. Is that really a fair thing to be publishing?

Desmond sues Heat over Spears

Richard Desmond's OK magazine is launching a legal against Heat over chunks of an interview with Jamie Lynn Spears they maintain was lifted from their publication. It's about pride, rather than money:

"OK! magazine has established its reputation in the UK, the USA and throughout the world by the relationship of trust it builds with celebrities," said OK!'s group editorial director, Paul Ashford.

"We take pride in handling their stories and pictures in a positive and responsible way. We go to all possible lengths within the law to protect these exclusives and safeguard the interests of the celebrities and of our own readers."

Ah, yes. OK should be justly proud of its positive and responsible handling of stories and photos.

This would be the same OIK Magazine whose "positive and responsible" outing of a person attending Alcoholics Anonymous was this described by the Press Complaints Commission:

It was clear that the magazine had published private information about the complainant. Taken together, the photograph, its caption, and the information in the article constituted intrusive material about her attendance at an AA meeting. The fact of her treatment was not in the public domain, and there was no public interest reason for publishing references to it without her consent.
The defence advanced by the magazine – that there was no breach of the Code because readers might think the complainant was at the meeting only to provide moral support – was clearly without merit. The fact was that the magazine had stated that she had attended the meeting and published a photograph of her outside it. It did not know whether she had been there for treatment herself, and took no care in its presentation of the material to avoid a possible intrusion into her privacy. This was reckless in the circumstances, as shown by the subsequent revelation that she had indeed been at the clinic for treatment. It was also regrettable that the magazine had not engaged with the complainant’s solicitor when a complaint was made directly to the publication.

Yes. Breaching someone's privacy when they're vulnerable, making up spurious justifications and ignoring their victim when they try to seek an apology. You can see why OK would be rushing to court to protect their reputation for "positive and responsible" handling of stories, can't you?

Oddly, Jamie Lynn took no notice

Britney Spears is bitterly upset at her sister for getting herself pregnant, after she'd explicitly warned her against becoming a gymslip mother.

And not just because, like, gymslips are so, you know, over now?

"I'm really disappointed in her," Britney raved to a friend. "I told her over and over just to be a kid and let the adult things like sex and drinking and all that wait."

So it turns out that - while we might have thought Britney was living through some sort of out-of-control carcrash life - she was merely trying to lead through bad example. Sadly, her warning from sistery has failed to work.