CBS spent almost four-and-a-half years fighting the fine imposed by the Federal Communications Commission for singer Janet Jackson's flash of nudity during the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show.
Fighting the Civil War didn't even take that long.
But in the end CBS got what it wanted: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals this week struck down the $550,000 penalty, deciding that the FCC acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in punishing the network for the performance that helped introduce the phrase "wardrobe malfunction" into the pop-culture lexicon.
For the 12 people on Earth who didn't hear about it, it unfolded like this: Jackson was onstage dancing during a musical number when fellow performer Justin Timberlake tears off part of her costume to reveal her bare breast.
People who have pooh-poohed this whole episode as a silly overreaction like to point out that the flash of skin lasted only a half-second. Blink and you would've missed it.
But that argument doesn't wash in an information age when -- to borrow a phrase from CBS' Dan Rather -- the camera never blinks. With constantly improving video and recording technology, action that lasts even a fraction of a second can be replayed over and over, or digitally captured as an everlasting frozen image.
So if the estimated 90 million viewers of the 2004 Super Bowl -- including who-knows-how-many kids -- didn't see the slip of nudity the first time, they and untold millions more certainly saw it when the captured image blazed its way worldwide courtesy of the Internet.
The performers intentionally perpetrated it. CBS broadcast it. And the FCC was well within its purview to slap CBS with a $550,000 fine.
But the most galling aspect of the fine's removal is this: Who do the judges on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals think they are that they can tell the FCC how to enforce its rules? This isn't checks and balances -- this is just shameful second-guessing on the part of the court. A three-judge panel basically robbed the FCC of its duty of punishing people who trowel out obscenity over the airwaves.
Just tack this on to the ever-growing list of examples demonstrating judicial activism gone amok. That could be the real obscenity here.
If any good comes out of this incident, it would be in the form of Senate Bill 1780, the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act. It would require the FCC to maintain a policy stating "that a single word or image may be considered indecent." There's been little movement on this bill since December, but in light of this shameful court ruling, S. 1780 needs Congress' full attention to assure it becomes law.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010. All Rights Reserved.
Yes sir, that's right at the top of my list of things that our congress needs to get done. John Ashcroft and the blue banner, where are you when we really, really need you?
What abunch of crock? You will se more than that if you watch Sex in The City, E.R. or NYPD Blues.
Shamefully you see more than that every single day with the FCC allowing the airing of commercials that are not fit for many adults eyes and ears let alone the children....
I think the point is not the incident but that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (established by Congress) can usurp the FCC's (established by Congress) authority. I wonder why CBS doesn't ban Jackson from CBS for her indecent act when NBC fired Don Imus for his indecent words. If NBC hadn't fired Imus I'm sure the FCC would have been on it but similarly any fine would have been waived. But I agree it is no big deal who cares about ethics and morals we are afterall just another animal on the planet.
This editor must have had a very slow week. Let it rest. While no one can prove intentions, it probably was a wardrobe malfunction. I've still never seen Janet Jackson's breast, without the digital scramble cover-up. And life will continue to be just fine if I don't. I've seen plenty of breasts ... women feeding babies, on European beaches, and the occasional slip-up exposure. I've even seen a penis or two. Big deal! Part of our culture's problem is being so ashamed of the human anatomy. Did JJ's exposure really scar anyone? There has probably been more laughter than trauma over this. And does this editor really think this subject warrants "Congress' full attention" when we have so many more critical issues in this country? Someone needs to give this editor more meaningful work to better occupy time.
I agree GoGreen who cares about womens breast and mens penises, and why not show beastiality and pedophilia too. No biggie Right???? It is all natural and biological so we should just accept it Right???? Why even make it a crime, so is your argument that all sexual predators should be set free because no Big Deal! Human anatomy can been seen medically, artistically, and sexually. This was not medical or artistic, and it was no accident either.
I completely agree with the editor of this article. As to wasting the time of congress, you probably have a point there, and they can't seem to get into agreement to pass any other important legislation, so they probably couldn't pass anything on this either. I think "uniform malfunction" is a crock, I believe the whole thing was totally intentional and in bad taste, and I think the performers are the ones that should be punished.
I think if anyone gets fined it should be Jackson and Timberlake.
Go Biz...Go Biz...it's your birthday...I agree with everything Biz said...and my name is not christian134
The opportunity to regulate what appears on our TV's was lost years ago.
Just tack this whole stupid over reaction to CONServative's radical right wing hysteria and prudism gone amok.
Bizzaro equates the nude body with sexual exploitation of minors and animals. How bizzarre.
Please do not enter a museum to view the great paintings and sculptures from the Italian Renaissance. Stay out of Italy especially. Avoid the Louvre and Musee d'Orsay in Paris like the plague. God forbid.
As for the Janet Jackson stir up, this is hardly something that should outrage anybody. Save it for the administration's trashing of the economy, the lies that brought us to war in Iraq that will have no end, record oil prices, and the rise of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of in his farewell address.
Hey little 14PUtt....
I didn't equate anything you are doing that sjgraci. I was being sarcastic about Gogreens comments and made the point it is about usurping delegated powers in govt. something the liberals go crazy over regarding Bush. I'm no right wing conservative. I tend to believe strict liberals are completely lacking in intelligence and strict conservatives live by fear and demand the status quo. I can see you are a strict liberal. Art and medical related nudity are different domains, but Jackson was pushing sex. That domain has boundaries set by the SCOTUS. I actually took nude drawing as an art major at one point in life, and attended medical school and attended gross anatomy. I opted for something else. You cannot equate those domains to sexual related anatomical depictions. Just like you can't equate it to pedophilia or beastiality as sjgraci so notes. Jeez yuz people are dense.
The female breast is not inherently obscene or evil. That said, the breast was not completely bare, there was an "ornament" over the nipple - which is also not inherently obscene or evil. I think the Chronicle should be more upset over the lyrics of the song which I think were inappropriate for a football game ("I'm going to have you naked by the end of this song.") No wonder the Europeans think we are prudes and idiots. I've seen worse on the beach - and I'm speaking of the topless men!
Nudity on European television has been around for decades. What is restricted are gratuitous acts of violence, for some reason they find that obscene......!
It is the law which is the point. Don't like it change it, but the problem people have with Bush is that he appears to usurp the law. Now people are arguing it's O.K. to usurp the law when they deem fit. Don't say a word about Bush breaking any laws when you can't be consistent. Seems a lack of logic and intelligence runs rampant in these parts. I would agree that any violence in TV or video games should be regulated given studies indicate they precipitate violent behaviors. This reminds me of all those who applauded the thief who stole gasoline because it was getting back at the oil industry and the CircleK. Why should there even be a FCC and why should anyone criminalize those internet companies who sell peoples cell phone records to people who want to spy on business associates and other people. Who needs privacy anyways. Why not let the Prez spy on citizens if citizens can spy on citizens. That's discrimination. LOL. Lets let it all hang out. Jeez.
You're upset because an appeals court made a legal decision? Besides, if you want obscenity, watch that vulgar Larry the Cable Guy.
No I could give a crap. Just stirring the pot. Hee,hee,hee,hee. Nobody was making any arguments so I decided to make some fallacious arguments and see what would bite today.
Apparently, my original post offended someone, so I cut it down, as it reads above; still, the short version didn't really say what I wanted to say; so here is the original again with as many possibly offensive words edited out as possible: An appeals court making a legal decision? Well, (wow), that's really something to (get you so upset that your undergarments feel tight)! The ones who continue to make a big deal over the incident are the real (slang words for the female mammalian parts of the upper human thorax; also slang for fools). If the "wardrobe malfunction" was deliberate, most of the fault lies, as another poster stated, with Jackson and Timberlake, along with whatever super-hyping production company rigged the stunt. The fascination with Ms. Jackson's (upper female mammalian thoracic body part) is odd, since it is hardly anything to leave home about, no offense. Offensive TV? From a purely aesthetic, not to mention moral, point of view, the most offensive thing on TV these days is that vulgar (motor mouth) Larry the Cable Guy. (I still don't understand the objection to the word mushmouth.)
Quite truthfully, had no one complained about Janet's malfunction I would never have known about it. I've never understood all the fuss. It was too late for children to be up anyway as it was a school night and I'm quite certain I saw bare boobs on National Geographic specials back when the only channels you could get on your TV here were 6, 12, 14 and 20. It probably would have been cheaper for CBS to just shut up and pay the penalty, but good for them for sticking to their guns and fighting this out. The Third Circuit Court saw this correctly and once again I'm amazed the Chronicle has bothered to waste space on an unnecessary rant.
Once again, the communists on this editorial staff wants the government to control what we as adults can watch. Don't say that is NOT your intent because it is.
I am glad that the 3d Circuit Court threw that fine out. And I'm glad that the activist judges in the 4th and 11th Circuits didn't get this case.
Williston, I see you are just as ignorant today as ever. I was watching the game (and half time) with my Sunday School class. Glad it wasn't my grand daughter. 'Nuff said.
You're the ignorant one, jack. Many of these 542,000 complaints came from a well-funded group of extremists hellbent on controlling what we as adults can watch. These were not ordinary, low-paid citizens who complained. I'm glad that the 3d Circuit saw the BS that was pulled on CBS Sports.
That is why they have something called a V-CHIP. Try it out someday.
Ordinary low-paid citizens are borderline retarded (an I.Q. below 80) that is why they are ordinary and low paid. That is factually accurate.