1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Appeals court tosses 'wardrobe malfunction' fine

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by forever_town, Jul 21, 2008.

  1. forever_town

    forever_town Active Member

    Sorry if this is a d_b:
    No fine for 'Boobgate'.

    While I'm tempted to make a joke about the appeals court judges being turned on by Janet's breast, I think they got it right. In my opinion, the FCC seriously overstepped its bounds.
     
  2. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    That's really shocking, a government agency -- and in particular that one -- overstepping its bounds........
     
  3. suburbia

    suburbia Active Member

    One good thing did come out of that though - I've liked the Paul McCartney, Rolling Stones, Prince and (esp.) Tom Petty performances that have come in Super Bowl halftime shows since then than the cheesy variety acts that came before Nipplegate.

    Now if only they can get Springsteen to perform during a Super Bowl halftime....
     
  4. forever_town

    forever_town Active Member

    That would NEVER work! He'd have to perform at least an hour.

    Four songs of Springsteen is about eight songs too few. And probably more like 16.
     
  5. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    Strongly disagree, which is probably not a surprise.

    As the AP notes in its story:

    The court found that the FCC deviated from its nearly 30-year practice of fining indecent broadcast programming only when it was so “pervasive as to amount to ’shock treatment’ for the audience.”

    Clearly, none of the judges are parents who'd gathered the kiddies around the ol' TV to watch the Super Bowl.

    Nobody enjoys seeing a tit more than me, but I can't imagine that, given the prevailing community standards in most places stil ubder some semblance of the rule of law, that this didn't indeed constitute some form of "shock treatment."

    But there may be some legal issue here that's not fully alluded to in the AP's story. Certainly, it does not appear that this was argued as a first amendment case. Indeed, I fully support the constitutional right of every woman to bare her breasts as she sees fit.

    The judges?

    Anthony J. Scirica – Reagan appointee (1984), previously dissented from the majority in another FCC case.

    Marjorie O. Rendell – Clinton appointee (1997)

    Julio M. Fuentes – Clinton appointee (1999, as a personal favor to Robert Torricelli, the U.S. senator from Korea by way of New Jersey)
     
  6. budcrew08

    budcrew08 Active Member

    Hear, hear!
     
  7. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    9/16ths of one second . . . of something CBS had no way of knowing was coming.

    No fine was deserved.
     
  8. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Yeah, the FCC frets about a nipple and does nothing about the homogenization of radio. Bulldoze their office building.
     
  9. Oz

    Oz Active Member

    To me, "shock treatment" on the networks began when flipping through channels one night and seeing Dennis Franz butt in a shower, making out with someone. I didn't see the FCC fine ABC $550,000 for that, though.
     
  10. forever_town

    forever_town Active Member

    "Who wants to talk about sex?! Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex sex!

    "I wanna know who's having sex, how're you having it? I wanna know if you're having it right now!

    "Hey, that's a great idea. Let's all get naked! Hey, I'm getting naked right now!

    "I'm not wearing any pants!" </Frasierjack>
     
  11. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    I didn't realize they ever came out and admitted they intended to expose her tit. Last I heard, they were still calling it a "wardrobe malfunction."

    That said, I continue to object to the very existence of the FCC as it is a government agency that is in direct violation of the First Amendment. I've always wanted to get that argued in the Supreme Court.
     
  12. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    No, no -- we need the government to protect us from ourselves.......
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page