Janet Jackson's breast flash during superbowl (nsfw) - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

runawayfetus · 02-10-2004, 06:07 PM

no one in their right mind would accidentally rip the breast-coverage off one of the most famous pop stars in front of all of america.. then again who would do it on purpose?

ubertuber · 02-10-2004, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by illesturban
The smokinggun.com reports:

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH When will this madness STOP!? Why did no one sue MTV over Britney, Madonna, and Xtina KISSING!? Makes no COT DAMN SENSE!

Well at least the
lawsuit was withdrawn. My favorite part was this: "Carlin retains the right to refile the suit if self-policing by broadcasters and fines by regulators do not accomplish what she was after." LMAO She's a litigating vigilante!

uit Over Janet Jackson Breast Stunt Withdrawn
Tue February 10, 2004 12:39 PM ET

By Michael Conlon

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A Tennessee woman has withdrawn a suit against singer Janet Jackson and others involved in her breast-baring Super Bowl show until she sees if broadcasters and regulators are able to clean up television themselves, court papers showed on Tuesday.

The suit filed last week in Knoxville, Tennessee, by Terri Carlin, had sought class action status and damages for millions of viewers who might have been exposed to what she said was lewd and inappropriate conduct by Jackson and others at the halftime event.

The suit had named pop star Justin Timberlake, who performed with Jackson, CBS Broadcasting Inc., show producer MTV Networks Enterprises Inc., and the parent of those two companies, Viacom Inc. .

It had asked the court to order a halt to offensive programing during hours when children are watching and to award damages for as many as 80 million U.S. viewers based on revenues from the show and how much the entertainers were paid.

The withdrawal notice filed in federal court on Monday said Carlin retains the right to refile the suit if self-policing by broadcasters and fines by regulators do not accomplish what she was after

The notice said Carlin's law firm, Ritchie, Fels and Dillard, which was handling the case for free, was flooded with calls and mail from parents in nearly every state. It also said that she recognized that damages, had they been awarded, were likely to have been nominal given the number of potential victims -- perhaps amounting to no more than the price of a month's cable TV subscription per person.

But if damages had been awarded, it said, wanton disregard of broadcast regulations would become cost prohibitive for violators.

Meanwhile the suit has been shelved "until it is determined whether the remedial measures recently announced by corporate defendants, the potential Federal Communications Commission sanctions and perhaps the passage of stronger enforcement provisions will prevent further similar conduct."

During the halftime show Timberlake tore off half of Jackson's black leather bustier, exposing her right breast, while the two were singing a duet.

Jackson took the blame but said "it was not my intention that it go as far as it did." Timberlake apologized for the incident when he appeared on Sunday's Grammy Awards broadcast, for which CBS used a delay to censor anything untoward from reaching viewers.

ABC also said it will use a delay on its Feb. 29 broadcast of the Academy Awards.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

tuffrr · 02-10-2004, 07:04 PM

Given the litigious nature of the US at the moment, do people think that the class action would have been allowed to proceed through the court system? Surely not?

SonicRL · 02-10-2004, 07:14 PM

Heh..I missed it.. not that I would have wanted to see it..but it still is rather humerous.

gorilla · 02-10-2004, 07:18 PM

Maybe she was trying to take some attention from her bro, Mike. Trying to get the family name alittle dirtier.

ubertuber · 02-10-2004, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tuffrr
Given the litigious nature of the US at the moment, do people think that the class action would have been allowed to proceed through the court system? Surely not?

I would hope not, but you can't count on anything these days... There would have been an EXTREMELY vocal minority, in addition to those just trying to cash in.

Alyssa · 02-10-2004, 09:51 PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzz: Even though it has been more than a week since the now infamous Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson halftime debacle, and even though every news outlet known to man has beat the piss out of the proverbial dead horse, people still can't seem to get over the fact that a woman's tit was shown on live TV. Oh the mortification!!! Yes television, the most wholesome, educational entertainment outlet available, has now been forever sullied by the two-second exposure of Ms. Jackson's cyborg breast. Even my mom, who is usually pretty hip about things, got seriously butt hurt about this whole situation. What's offensive to me is that 89 million people reserved their Sunday to watch grown men play with a f-ing ball and run headlong into each other for four hours. Actually, I guess that only happens for about an hour. The other three were filled with calls to mindless consumerism (at $3 million a minute) and even a word from our Great Leader regarding the all-important domestic issue of football. Shouldn't these barking dogs of morality be considering why, on their beloved Sabbath, those families who are "outraged" by the tit-shot weren't spending their time in quiet reflection of the Bible's teachings? Anyways, the world turns...

Cordachine007 · 02-10-2004, 11:51 PM

I was in Vegas for the superbowl at a private party with free drinks, so by halftime, I was figuring out if I could still win on my bets and about....no wait...drunk, yeah drunk. Anyway I just happened to look up from my beer about 10 secs before the tit came out and i was like....was that.....nah, and went back to my beer. I was actually watching the news the next day when I actually heard that it was. I was like SWEET!! JUSTIN ISN'T A PUNK AFTER ALL! HE IS THE MAN :O

FishKing · 02-11-2004, 09:33 PM

She needs attention to sell records.

I can not find one person to name three of her songs without looking them up.

I figured her brother is going to jail and the Jackson family needs the money for court cost.

Cynthetiq · 02-12-2004, 09:27 AM

from WSJ Feb 4

Quote:

Feb 4, 2004
Wall Street Journal
Viacom's Porn Channel

So the entire world has now got a taste of what passes for entertainment on MTV every day. That was our reaction to the furor over the MTV-produced Super Bowl halftime show, which network President Judy McGrath described as "exciting" and "great" and marred only by "five seconds none of us knew anything about."

Uh-huh. Nelly's simulated masturbation -- while performing his trademark "Hot in Herre" ("So take off all your clothes...") -- was no doubt wholesome family fare. As was the simulated sex between Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake that preceded the now infamous breast-baring incident. As, for that matter, was the Britney Spears-Madonna lip-clinch that defined the most recent MTV Video Music Awards.

"Five seconds none of us knew anything about"? Give us a break.

The truth is that Ms. McGrath makes her living as an impresario of soft-core (albeit legal) kiddy porn. MTV has very consciously decided to make stars out of such scantily clad nymphettes as Ms. Spears and Christina Aguilera. The network that is a favorite of pre-teens is also home to an ever-growing array of shows with more ("Undressed") or less ("The Real World") sexually explicit themes.

The Viacom TV channel will also soon be hitting the beaches for its Spring Break specials, the message of which is that excessive underage drinking and casual sexual hookups are no-cost fun. Meanwhile, MTV sister channel VH1 (also overseen by Ms. McGrath) has a "Porn to Rock" series that is turning triple-X stars like Jenna Jameson into household names.

Next to all of this, the Super Bowl halftime show was relatively tame and mercifully short. We're pretty sure the kids will survive it, but we're less sanguine about the long-term effects of the daily sex diet that Ms. McGrath is feeding poorly supervised youngsters. If MTV, its parent company Viacom and Chairman Sumner Redstone are truly contrite about what happened Sunday, they can show it by providing some adult guidance to their music networks. And how about showing Ms. McGrath the door?

Tom Freston responded to the Editor of the WSJ and I will post that later.

ARTelevision · 02-12-2004, 09:32 AM

"The truth is that Ms. McGrath makes her living as an impresario of soft-core (albeit legal) kiddy porn."

This is how it is.

Cynthetiq · 02-12-2004, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
from WSJ Feb 4

Tom Freston responded to the Editor of the WSJ and I will post that later.

I'm not sure what date it was printed, but here is the text.

Quote:

MTV Does Not Deserve A Scarlet Letter

I'm writing to express my outrage about your Feb. 4 Editorial "Viacom's Porn Channel." It is not only offensive but a clear indication that you are out of touch with mainstream culture. Also, I am deeply offended by your personal attack on Judy McGrath, who is a tremendous executive and creative force in television and a fantastic champion of youth culture and positive social messages.

It is completely irresponsible and unfair to use an isolated, unfortunate split second incident to pain all of MTV with the brush of pornography. The reason MTV agreed to produce the Super Bowl halftime show was that it gave us the opportunity to reach the biggest television audience with performances from popular artists, combined with a positive message about empowerment and voting – the key themes of our recently launched "Choose or Lose" campaign.

We worked in collaboration with CBS and the NFL to develop the entire show. We booked mainstream artist – established musicians – who have sold millions of records and have had huge hits at the top of the charts. These are artists who have performed all over broadcast television, at USO shows, and pervious Super Bowls and who are spokespeople for major advertisers.

We are not proud of the crotch grabbing in one of the performances, and it was never intended to be part of the show. And we were shocked and embarrassed about the last split second of the halftime show. Janet Jackson has acknowledged in both written and televised statements that the decision to have a costume reveal her breast at the end of her performance was hers alone and that MTV, CBS and the NFL were completely unaware of her plans. It was totally inappropriate and unacceptable and it's ludicrous to think we would have knowingly included it.

The Wall Street Journal may choose to believe that MTV was in on this finale, but the FCC investigation will fully prove that we are telling the truth.

MTV is the largest network in the world and the most recognized media brand in the world. We've grown our audience and our business each year for the past 23 years by thoroughly knowing our audience and credibly and creatively connecting with them.

MTV reflects the culture of its youthful audience. Your notion that MTV can single handedly make stars out of people gives us far too much credit and vastly underestimates the genuine appeal that these artists have with audiences worldwide.

Under Judy McGrath's leadership, MTV has always stood for freedom of artistic expression and healthy cultural debate, so we respect your right to voice your opinion, which has become, about MTV, a broken, predictable record.

From the music we feature to the original programming we produce, the imagery seen on MTV has been freely and enthusiastically embraced by our viewers, primarily 18-to-24-year-olds, whose tastes are as different from their elders as the tests of the 1950s and '60s youth were from the older adult cultures of those times. The elder culture doesn't generally like or understand the youth culture of their times: they find it alarming, and even scary. But society has always survived it; and has even in many cases been enriched by it. In fact, any report on today's youth would find that they are a more responsible and more tolerant generation than the ones that preceded them.

Judy McGrath makes sure that, everyday, MTV and the other networks she runs, in addition to entertaining viewers, creatively and passionately address the issues that matter to them and empowers them to get involved and make a difference. From ending prejudice to fighting AIDS to saving music programs in schools to registering young people to vote, Judy can feel incredibly proud and despite your offensive claims, we are equally proud of her.

MTV lives in and embraces the diverse world around us. It's a shame that the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal does not.

Tom Freston
Chairman and CEO
MTV Networks
New York

ARTelevision · 02-12-2004, 12:14 PM

Nearly everyone on Earth thinks of themselves as noble.
Our minds are amazing rationalization devices.

H12 · 02-12-2004, 08:01 PM

I only read the first two pages on this thread, so excuse me if this has already been mentioned...but I've got two things to say.

1)

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
If that wasn't staged, I want to know what his hand was SUPPOSED to be doing.

2) I guarantee you that MTV, one day, will brag about being too hardcore for the Superbowl and will try to garner fans like that.

Cynthetiq · 02-17-2004, 07:50 AM

Interesting thoughts from Sunday NYTimes.

link

Quote:

February 15, 2004
FRANK RICH
My Hero, Janet Jackson

It may be a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Two weeks after the bustier bust, almost no one has come to the defense of Janet Jackson. I do so with a full heart. By baring a single breast in a slam-dunk publicity stunt of two seconds' duration, this singer also exposed just how many boobs we have in this country. We owe her thanks for a genuine public service.

You can argue that Ms. Jackson is the only honest figure in this Super Bowl of hypocrisy. She was out to accomplish a naked agenda — the resuscitation of her fading career on the eve of her new album's release — and so she did. She's not faking much remorse, either. Last Sunday she refused to appear on the Grammys rather than accede to CBS's demand that she perform a disingenuous, misty-eyed ritual "apology" to the nation for her crime of a week earlier. By contrast, Justin Timberlake, the wimp who gave the English language the lasting gift of "wardrobe malfunction," did as he was told, a would-be pop rebel in a jacket and a tie, looking like a schoolboy reporting to the principal's office. Ms. Jackson, one suspects, is laughing all the way to the bank.

There are plenty of Americans to laugh at, starting with the public itself. If we are to believe the general outcry, the nation's families were utterly blindsided by the Janet-Justin pas de deux while watching an entertainment akin to "Little Women." As Laura Bush put it, "Parents wouldn't know to turn their television off before that happened." They wouldn't? In the two-plus hours "before that happened," parents saw not only the commercials featuring a crotch-biting dog, a flatulent horse and a potty-mouthed child but also the number in which the crotch-grabbing Nelly successfully commanded a gaggle of cheerleaders to rip off their skirts. What signal were these poor, helpless adults waiting for before pulling their children away from the set? Apparently nothing short of a simulated rape would do.

Once the deed was done, the audience couldn't stop watching it. TV viewers with TiVo set an instant-replay record as they slowed down the offending imagery with a clinical alacrity heretofore reserved for the Zapruder film. Lycos, the Internet search engine, reported that the number of searches for Janet Jackson tied the record set by 9/11-related searches on and just after 9/11.

"That a single breast received as much attention as the first attack on United States soil in 60 years is beyond belief," wrote Aaron Schatz, the columnist on the Lycos Top 50 site. (Though not, perhaps, to the fundamentalist zealots who attacked us.)

For those who still couldn't get enough, the cable news channels giddily played the video over and over to remind us of just how deplorable it was. Even though by this point the networks were blurring the breast with electronic pasties, there was still an erotic kick to be milked: the act of a man tearing off a woman's clothes was as thrilling to the audience as whatever flesh was revealed therein, perhaps more so. But to say that aloud is to travel down a road that our moral watchdogs do not want to take. It's the unwritten rule of our culture that the public is always right. The "folks," as Bill O'Reilly is fond of condescending to them, are always the innocent victims of the big, bad cultural villains. They're never complicit in the crime. The idea that the folks might have the free will to tune out tasteless TV programming or do without TV altogether — or that they might eat up the sleaze, with or without young 'uns in the room — is almost never stated on television, for obvious reasons of fiscal self-interest. You don't insult your customers.

Since the public is blameless for its role in creating a market for displays like the Super Bowl's, who should be the scapegoat instead? If you peruse Mr. O'Reilly's admonitions in his first three programs dealing with the topic, or the tirades of The Wall Street Journal editorial page and right-wing direct-mail mills like the Parents Television Council and Concerned Women for America, you'll find a revealing pattern: MTV, CBS and their parent corporation, Viacom, are the exclusive targets of the invective. The National Football League is barely mentioned, if at all. To blame the country's highest-rated sports operation, after all, might risk insulting the football-watching folks to whom these moral watchdogs pander for fun and profit.

But the N.F.L. is in the sex business as assiduously as CBS and MTV, and for the same reason: it wants those prurient eyeballs. It's now been more than a quarter-century since Super Bowl X, when the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders first caught the attention of the nation. "The audience deserves a little sex with its violence," Chuck Milton, a CBS sports producer, said back then.

The N.F.L. has since worked tirelessly to fill that need. This year was not the first MTV halftime show that the league has ordered to try to expand its aging audience beyond the Levitra demographic. The first such collaboration, Super Bowl XXXV three years ago, featured Britney Spears all but falling out of a halter top and numbers in which both Mr. Timberlake (then appearing with 'NSync) and Nelly grabbed their crotches. There was, to my eye, twice as much crotch-grabbing then as there was this year, but that show generated no outrage whatsoever.

It did, however, attract two million more viewers than the game itself. The N.F.L. wanted more of the same for 2004, which is why the league's commissioner, Paul Tagliabue, released a statement saying, "We're pleased to work again with MTV" when announcing the encore. Or pleased up to a point. When MTV proposed that part of the show be devoted to a performance of the song "An American Prayer" by Bono to increase awareness of the horrific AIDS epidemic in Africa, the N.F.L. said no — even though Bono had done the league the favor of giving the 2002 Super Bowl halftime show a dignified musical tribute to the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

The mention of a sexually transmitted disease might dampen the libido of the salacious MTV show that the N.F.L. wanted this year and wanted so badly that the league remained silent even when MTV's pregame publicity promised that the performance would contain "some shocking moments." As one participant in the production told me, the N.F.L. saw "every camera angle" at the show's rehearsals and thus was no less aware of its general tone than CBS and MTV were. You don't hire Ms. Jackson, who's been steadily exposing more of her breasts for over a decade on magazine covers, to sing "Rock Your Body" if you have a G-rated game plan. Nonetheless, Joe Browne, the league's flak, pleaded total innocence after the event, releasing a hilarious statement that the N.F.L., like the public, was the unwitting victim of a show that it had both commissioned and helped supervise: "We applaud the F.C.C.'s investigation into the MTV-produced halftime. We and our fans were embarrassed by the entire show."

That investigation, piggybacked by last week's Congressional hearings, is an election-year stunt as full of hot air as the Bud Light horse flatulence ad. "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration," declared Michael Powell, the F.C.C. chairman, upon announcing that the entire halftime would be examined. A celebration of what, exactly? Didn't Mr. Powell, the nation's chief television regulator, watch the previous MTV halftime show?

He promises to conduct the investigation himself — a meaningless gesture, though it may gain him an audience and perhaps a photo op with Ms. Jackson. Mr. Powell's real agenda here is to conduct a show trial that might counter his well-earned reputation as a wholly owned subsidiary of our media giants. Viacom has been a particularly happy beneficiary of the deregulatory push of his reign, buying up every slice of the media pie that's not nailed down. Should CBS be found guilty of "indecency" by the feds, the total penalty would amount to some $5 million, roughly the price of two 30-second Super Bowl commercials. Congress's new push to increase those fines tenfold is just as laughable. Viacom took in $26.6 billion last year.

Not for nothing did the company's stock actually go up the day after the Super Bowl. The halftime show was great merchandising for both MTV and CBS, the go-to network for "Victoria's Secret Fashion Show." Not to be left without a piece of the action, even NBC got into the act. Citing the Jackson flap, it decreed that two split-second shots of an 80-year-old woman's breast in an emergency room sequence in "E.R." be excised. But the "E.R." star Noah Wyle then went on NBC's "Today" show the morning of the broadcast to joke about the decision, and the network-owned NBC affiliate in New York used the banned breast as a promo for its post-"E.R." news broadcast: "What you won't see on tonight's episode of `E.R.' — at 11!" Thus did NBC successfully transform its decision not to bare geriatric flesh into a sexual tease to hype ratings. This is true marketing genius, American-style.

What's next? Some are predicting that all the tape delays being injected into TV events to pre-empt future wardrobe malfunctions will be the death of spontaneous, live TV. But the moment an awards show takes a ratings hit, this new electronic prophylactic will be quietly abandoned by the networks even faster than the N.F.L.'s vague threat not to collaborate with MTV next year.

Ms. Jackson, the biggest winner in this whole escapade, is already back on the air. Her official rehabilitation began right after the Super Bowl, when BET started broadcasting a 10-part series of "special Black History Month" spots in which she profiles historical luminaries like Harriet Tubman, Paul Robeson and Sidney Poitier.

"Her tone is serious and focused, with the air and diction of a seasoned lecturer," says the network's news release, which also notes that "the spots feature Ms. Jackson clad in classic black." Wasn't her Super Bowl dominatrix costume classic black as well? Well, never underestimate the power of synergy. BET is another wholly owned subsidiary of Viacom.

Cynthetiq · 03-01-2004, 01:59 PM

emails from thesmokinggun.com

some of these make for interesting points...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jjfcc1.html

Fearless_Hyena · 03-01-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
emails from thesmokinggun.com

some of these make for interesting points...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jjfcc1.html

Quote from #11:

"We are not a bunch of prudes. We've been around the block a time or two."

Are these "mothers and grandmothers" tryin' to say they're LOOSE or something?!?! Too funny!!

Thanks for the link!

Cynthetiq · 05-27-2004, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Man Loses Lawsuit Against Viacom Over Super Bowl Halftime Show
POSTED: 10:29 AM EDT May 27, 2004
UPDATED: 11:34 AM EDT May 27, 2004

SALT LAKE CITY -- A judge in Utah is rejecting a lawsuit over the Super Bowl halftime show.

A Utah lawyer sued Viacom -- the owner of CBS -- in small-claims court for false advertising, claiming he was led to believe the show would be a family-oriented patriotic celebration.

But a judge says Eric Stephenson made his own assumptions -- and ruled in favor of Viacom on Wednesday.

The halftime show included the infamous Janet Jackson breast-baring incident. Stephenson also objected to Jackson and her dancers simulating sex acts on stage -- and said singer Kid Rock desecrated the American flag by wearing it as a poncho. He sued Viacom for five-thousand dollars.

Stephenson says he's disappointed.

link

Charlatan · 05-27-2004, 07:46 AM

Quote:

-- and said singer Kid Rock desecrated the American flag by wearing it as a poncho. He sued Viacom for five-thousand dollars.

So how does he feel when US Olympic atheletes do this?

This guy is the cranky old man down the street with nothing better to do than bitch and moan...

Cynthetiq · 05-27-2004, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
So how does he feel when US Olympic atheletes do this?

This guy is the cranky old man down the street with nothing better to do than bitch and moan...

probably like a self righteous proud hypocritical american.

ARTelevision · 05-29-2004, 06:20 AM

In my opinion the public trust by broascasters was in fact violated by the antics in question. Not all judges have Solomonic wisdom, or guts.

bermuDa · 05-29-2004, 09:18 AM

It's just a nipple, we all have them....

If the grown ups weren't so afraid of them, the few kids probably wouldn't have even noticed.

if the children are really upset by a single fucking nipple, seems more like a failure by the parents than the network.

basmoq · 05-30-2004, 08:57 PM

wow, thanks, I never was able to find a tape of that show, I was studdying organic chem at school when it all went down

ARTelevision · 09-05-2004, 08:23 AM

Update:
The fines are very low-ball but the official rebuke is necessary:
.........................................................................................

CBS gets record fine over Jackson's breast
Sat September 04, 2004 03:21 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission is set to impose a record $550,000 (310,000 pounds) indecency fine against CBS-owned stations for their broadcast of singer Janet Jackson's breast-bearing incident during January's Super Bowl, the Washington Post reports.
The newspaper report, which cited unnamed FCC sources, said on Saturday the agency was expected to vote unanimously for the fine, which would be the largest levied against a television broadcaster.

The amount represents a $27,500 fine for each of the 20 television stations owned by CBS, which in turn is owned by Viacom Inc, the paper said.

The decision could be released as early as next week, the paper said. Excluded from the fines are CBS's more than 200 affiliate stations, which also aired the half-time show during the National Football League championship game.

Although the vote was expected to be unanimous, some commissioners are expected to say the fines are not severe enough, the newspaper said.

It said the exclusion for affiliate stations was one source of disagreement among the five-member FCC, citing unnamed sources familiar with the agency's deliberations. A spokesman for the FCC would not comment on the pending ruling, the paper said.

"We would be extremely disappointed," CBS said in a statement issued to the newspaper. "While we regret that the incident occurred, and have apologised to our viewers, we continue to believe that nothing in the Super Bowl broadcast violated indecency laws."

ngdawg · 09-05-2004, 08:43 AM

The public trust was violated long before Janet showed off her piercing-allowing a song that included the line 'i'll have you naked by the time this song is over' during a show that was termed as 'wholesome American family entertainment' was a ridiculous lapse of judgement. The fine should include that and they payment have been more accordingly. (Lord knows I'm not a prude, but if standards are set, they should be met(my apologies to Johnny Cochran)).
Sometimes you just have to wonder where the brains of these decision-makers are.

foscon · 09-05-2004, 10:25 AM

I didnt realize that michael had breast

Kalnaur · 09-05-2004, 03:35 PM

They're still dealing with this? It was just a breast, people. Jeez.

02-10-2004, 06:07 PM	#201 (permalink)
runawayfetus Crazy Location: san fran	no one in their right mind would accidentally rip the breast-coverage off one of the most famous pop stars in front of all of america.. then again who would do it on purpose? __________________ im a huge movie goer....

02-10-2004, 07:14 PM	#204 (permalink)
SonicRL Insane	Heh..I missed it.. not that I would have wanted to see it..but it still is rather humerous. __________________

02-10-2004, 07:18 PM	#205 (permalink)
gorilla Insane Location: USA	Maybe she was trying to take some attention from her bro, Mike. Trying to get the family name alittle dirtier. __________________ I'll bet you $5 that you read the previous word...

02-12-2004, 09:32 AM	#211 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	"The truth is that Ms. McGrath makes her living as an impresario of soft-core (albeit legal) kiddy porn." This is how it is. __________________ create evolution

02-12-2004, 12:14 PM	#213 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Nearly everyone on Earth thinks of themselves as noble. Our minds are amazing rationalization devices. __________________ create evolution

02-10-2004, 07:04 PM	#203 (permalink)
tuffrr Registered User Location: On the internet	Given the litigious nature of the US at the moment, do people think that the class action would have been allowed to proceed through the court system? Surely not?

02-10-2004, 09:51 PM	#207 (permalink)
Alyssa Tilted Location: Chico, Ca.	Zzzzzzzzzzzz: Even though it has been more than a week since the now infamous Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson halftime debacle, and even though every news outlet known to man has beat the piss out of the proverbial dead horse, people still can't seem to get over the fact that a woman's tit was shown on live TV. Oh the mortification!!! Yes television, the most wholesome, educational entertainment outlet available, has now been forever sullied by the two-second exposure of Ms. Jackson's cyborg breast. Even my mom, who is usually pretty hip about things, got seriously butt hurt about this whole situation. What's offensive to me is that 89 million people reserved their Sunday to watch grown men play with a f-ing ball and run headlong into each other for four hours. Actually, I guess that only happens for about an hour. The other three were filled with calls to mindless consumerism (at $3 million a minute) and even a word from our Great Leader regarding the all-important domestic issue of football. Shouldn't these barking dogs of morality be considering why, on their beloved Sabbath, those families who are "outraged" by the tit-shot weren't spending their time in quiet reflection of the Bible's teachings? Anyways, the world turns...

02-10-2004, 11:51 PM	#208 (permalink)
Cordachine007 Tilted Location: MI....GO BLUE!	I was in Vegas for the superbowl at a private party with free drinks, so by halftime, I was figuring out if I could still win on my bets and about....no wait...drunk, yeah drunk. Anyway I just happened to look up from my beer about 10 secs before the tit came out and i was like....was that.....nah, and went back to my beer. I was actually watching the news the next day when I actually heard that it was. I was like SWEET!! JUSTIN ISN'T A PUNK AFTER ALL! HE IS THE MAN :O

02-11-2004, 09:33 PM	#209 (permalink)
FishKing Tilted	She needs attention to sell records. I can not find one person to name three of her songs without looking them up. I figured her brother is going to jail and the Jackson family needs the money for court cost.

03-01-2004, 01:59 PM	#216 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	emails from thesmokinggun.com some of these make for interesting points... http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jjfcc1.html

05-29-2004, 06:20 AM	#221 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	In my opinion the public trust by broascasters was in fact violated by the antics in question. Not all judges have Solomonic wisdom, or guts. __________________ create evolution

05-29-2004, 09:18 AM	#222 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	It's just a nipple, we all have them.... If the grown ups weren't so afraid of them, the few kids probably wouldn't have even noticed. if the children are really upset by a single fucking nipple, seems more like a failure by the parents than the network. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

05-30-2004, 08:57 PM	#223 (permalink)
basmoq It's a girly girl! Location: OH, USA	wow, thanks, I never was able to find a tape of that show, I was studdying organic chem at school when it all went down __________________ "There's someone out there for everyone - even if you need a pickaxe, a compass, and night goggles to find them."

09-05-2004, 08:23 AM	#224 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Update: The fines are very low-ball but the official rebuke is necessary: ......................................................................................... CBS gets record fine over Jackson's breast Sat September 04, 2004 03:21 AM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission is set to impose a record $550,000 (310,000 pounds) indecency fine against CBS-owned stations for their broadcast of singer Janet Jackson's breast-bearing incident during January's Super Bowl, the Washington Post reports. The newspaper report, which cited unnamed FCC sources, said on Saturday the agency was expected to vote unanimously for the fine, which would be the largest levied against a television broadcaster. The amount represents a $27,500 fine for each of the 20 television stations owned by CBS, which in turn is owned by Viacom Inc, the paper said. The decision could be released as early as next week, the paper said. Excluded from the fines are CBS's more than 200 affiliate stations, which also aired the half-time show during the National Football League championship game. Although the vote was expected to be unanimous, some commissioners are expected to say the fines are not severe enough, the newspaper said. It said the exclusion for affiliate stations was one source of disagreement among the five-member FCC, citing unnamed sources familiar with the agency's deliberations. A spokesman for the FCC would not comment on the pending ruling, the paper said. "We would be extremely disappointed," CBS said in a statement issued to the newspaper. "While we regret that the incident occurred, and have apologised to our viewers, we continue to believe that nothing in the Super Bowl broadcast violated indecency laws." __________________ create evolution

09-05-2004, 08:43 AM	#225 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	The public trust was violated long before Janet showed off her piercing-allowing a song that included the line 'i'll have you naked by the time this song is over' during a show that was termed as 'wholesome American family entertainment' was a ridiculous lapse of judgement. The fine should include that and they payment have been more accordingly. (Lord knows I'm not a prude, but if standards are set, they should be met(my apologies to Johnny Cochran)). Sometimes you just have to wonder where the brains of these decision-makers are.

09-05-2004, 10:25 AM	#226 (permalink)
foscon Upright	I didnt realize that michael had breast

09-05-2004, 03:35 PM	#227 (permalink)
Kalnaur Psycho Location: Portland, Oregon	They're still dealing with this? It was just a breast, people. Jeez. __________________ PC: Can you help me out here HK? HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags. PC: And the other 2 percent? HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.