Appeals court tosses 'wardrobe malfunction' fine

[forever_town]

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.

 

[zagoshe]

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.

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

 

[suburbia]

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.

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

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....

 

[forever_town]

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

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.

 

[HejiraHenry]

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.

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)

 

[budcrew08]

Indeed, I fully support the constitutional right of every woman to bare her breasts as she sees fit.

Hear, hear!

 

[BTExpress]

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

No fine was deserved.

 

[dooley_womack1]

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

 

[Oz]

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."

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.

 

[forever_town]

Indeed, I fully support the constitutional right of every woman to bare her breasts as she sees fit.

Hear, hear!

"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>

 

[bigpern23]

Jackson has said the decision to add a costume reveal — exposing her right breast, which had only a silver sunburst "shield" covering her nipple — came after the final rehearsal.

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.

 

[zagoshe]

Jackson has said the decision to add a costume reveal — exposing her right breast, which had only a silver sunburst "shield" covering her nipple — came after the final rehearsal.

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.

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

 

[budcrew08]

Indeed, I fully support the constitutional right of every woman to bare her breasts as she sees fit.

Hear, hear!

"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>

Solid.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

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

No fine was deserved.

And that's the real reason the fine should have been thrown out: It wasn't CBS' fault.

 

[Beaker]

Yep, no culpability on CBS's end.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

It all gets tricky, though: MTV may well have known what was up and not told CBS, and both are owned by Viacom.

Still, the fine was absurd. And the fact that they were threatening affiliates was worse.

 

[markvid]

Only 2 people knew.
And one let Janet take all the blame.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

It all gets tricky, though: MTV may well have known what was up and not told CBS, and both are owned by Viacom.

Still, the fine was absurd. And the fact that they were threatening affiliates was worse.

As I said the day after this happened, why should we be surprised that this happened in an MTV production? After all, isn't MTV the network that has an awards show where nobody cares about the awards, where it's all about making sure something happens that everyone talks about the next morning?
The next day, Janet Jackson when Janet Jackson turned on the TV or picked up the paper, her first thought was "They're talking about me."