Janet Jackson flash to be re-examined

Chat about anything and everything... (well almost anything) Whether it be the front porch or the pot belly stove or news of interest or a topic of your liking, this is the place to post it.

Moderator: S2k Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
HURAKAN
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 46086
Age: 38
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

Janet Jackson flash to be re-examined

#1 Postby HURAKAN » Mon May 04, 2009 10:52 am

Jackson flash to be re-examined

The US Supreme Court has ordered a re-examination of a ruling that threw out a fine over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during 2004's Super Bowl.

Federal regulators had initially fined CBS TV $550,000 (£368,000) in September 2004 for airing the glimpse of Jackson's breast during the broadcast.

But an appeals court quashed it in July last year saying the watchdog acted "arbitrarily" in issuing the fine.

Some 90 million viewers saw the incident during the half time show.

Jackson was performing alongside Justin Timberlake when he reached for her bra and the "malfunction" occurred.

About 542,000 complaints were received by broadcaster CBS.

Now the high court has directed the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to consider reinstating the fine imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The order follows a high court ruling last week that upheld the FCC's policy that subjects broadcasters to fines against even single uses of swear words on live television.

Last year, the appeals court threw out the fine against CBS, saying that as the incident lasted nine-sixteenths of one second, it should have been regarded as "fleeting".

The appeals court said CBS could not be held liable for the acts of Jackson and Timberlake - now that ruling will be reviewed in view of the Supreme Court's order in the case.

Lawyers for CBS had urged the Supreme Court to reject the FCC's appeal.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/e ... 032720.stm
0 likes   

User avatar
Category 5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10074
Age: 35
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Contact:

Re: Janet Jackson flash to be re-examined

#2 Postby Category 5 » Mon May 04, 2009 12:23 pm

Because the Supreme court can't possibly have anything better to do. :roll:
0 likes   

User avatar
HURAKAN
Professional-Met
Professional-Met
Posts: 46086
Age: 38
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Key West, FL
Contact:

#3 Postby HURAKAN » Mon May 04, 2009 12:27 pm

:uarrow: They probably want to examine the flash in slow motion!!!
0 likes   

Derek Ortt

#4 Postby Derek Ortt » Mon May 04, 2009 1:33 pm

the fine should stand as the regulations were in place at the time

supreme court is merely upholding the law
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re:

#5 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Mon May 04, 2009 1:34 pm

HURAKAN wrote::uarrow: They probably want to examine the flash in slow motion!!!




I saw an image on the internet, and even for normal heterosexual men, it really wasn't very appealling...
0 likes   

Brent
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 38090
Age: 36
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: Janet Jackson flash to be re-examined

#6 Postby Brent » Mon May 04, 2009 9:10 pm

Seriously... who even cares anymore?

This country has some screwed up priorities.
0 likes   

Squarethecircle
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 2165
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: Fairfax, VA

Re: Janet Jackson flash to be re-examined

#7 Postby Squarethecircle » Mon May 04, 2009 9:30 pm

Brent wrote:Seriously... who even cares anymore?

This country has some screwed up priorities.

I agree. This shouldn't have been newsworthy when it happened, let alone five years later.
0 likes   

olddude
Tropical Storm
Tropical Storm
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 3:27 pm
Location: Big Pine Key, FL. (24.61N - 81.38W)

Re: Janet Jackson flash to be re-examined

#8 Postby olddude » Tue May 05, 2009 4:00 pm

Brent wrote:Seriously... who even cares anymore?

This country has some screwed up priorities.


Agreed. Non-issue. Carry on with something that matters.
0 likes   

User avatar
abajan
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4230
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 5:10 am
Location: Barbados

Re:

#9 Postby abajan » Tue May 05, 2009 6:31 pm

HURAKAN wrote::uarrow: They probably want to examine the flash in slow motion!!!
:lol:

Question: CBS was fined for airing the incident but hasn't NatGeo (National Geographic Channel) occasionally shown bare breasted women dancing and so on in some African countries? Has NatGeo ever been fined for that?
0 likes   

Ed Mahmoud

Re: Re:

#10 Postby Ed Mahmoud » Tue May 05, 2009 6:54 pm

abajan wrote:
HURAKAN wrote: :uarrow: They probably want to examine the flash in slow motion!!!
:lol:

Question: CBS was fined for airing the incident but hasn't NatGeo (National Geographic Channel) occasionally shown bare breasted women dancing and so on in some African countries? Has NatGeo ever been fined for that?


NatGeo and Discovery are cable stations, not subject to the FCC like CBS is.
0 likes   

OpieStorm

Re: Janet Jackson flash to be re-examined

#11 Postby OpieStorm » Tue May 05, 2009 8:18 pm

Brent wrote:Seriously... who even cares anymore?

This country has some screwed up priorities.

Seriously. Greatest country on the globe still hung over a 1.3 second glimpse of a boob 5 years ago.
0 likes   

User avatar
Ptarmigan
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 5313
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

Re: Janet Jackson flash to be re-examined

#12 Postby Ptarmigan » Tue May 05, 2009 8:39 pm

Super Bowl XXXVIII was very memorable and a good game. Too bad that the Janet Jackson flash overshadowed it.
0 likes   

User avatar
Jinkers
Category 1
Category 1
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida
Contact:

Re: Janet Jackson flash to be re-examined

#13 Postby Jinkers » Tue May 05, 2009 10:13 pm

I thought the whole thing was stupid-lol, a whole lot of fuss over nothing, I saw the halftime show, never thought anything about it, thought the halftime show wasn't very good to begin with-lol.
0 likes   

User avatar
mf_dolphin
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 17758
Age: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
Location: St Petersburg, FL
Contact:

#14 Postby mf_dolphin » Thu May 07, 2009 3:48 pm

Anyone who thinks that it was a wardrobe malfunction needs to seek help. It was painfully obvious that it was scripted and planned.
0 likes   

User avatar
somethingfunny
ChatStaff
ChatStaff
Posts: 3926
Age: 37
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:30 pm
Location: McKinney, Texas

#15 Postby somethingfunny » Thu May 07, 2009 10:12 pm

Does anybody remember that guy who ran naked across the field just before the halftime show began? I thought that was way more flagrant and offensive than whatever happened between Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson that I wasn't paying attention to because their music is terrible....

and yet CBS had an equal amount on (non)control over both of them.
0 likes   

Miss Mary

#16 Postby Miss Mary » Fri May 08, 2009 1:20 pm

Someone should dig up the old thread we had on the original Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake incident. It was pretty funny.......I think it was titled - did I just see a ......

I'm not very good at searching but always happy to nudge people in that direction if they have the time. I think either Chad or j started the original topic....

I do remember hearing about a streaker on the field!

*Edit* Wow we discussed this topic to death back then....LOL!!!

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=24294&start=0
viewforum.php?f=6&st=0&sk=t&sd=d&start=17900
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=24324&start=0
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=24293
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=24384
0 likes   

User avatar
abajan
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4230
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 5:10 am
Location: Barbados

Re: Janet Jackson flash to be re-examined

#17 Postby abajan » Fri May 08, 2009 8:15 pm

OpieStorm wrote:
Brent wrote:Seriously... who even cares anymore?

This country has some screwed up priorities.

Seriously. Greatest country on the globe still hung over a 1.3 second glimpse of a boob 5 years ago.
Occasionally, my Mom (God rest her soul) used to call me a boob and I didn't think anything of it until she called me that in front of my American cousin (Linda) while we were visiting family in the US (Ohio, to be specific) and my cousin burst out laughing. After she composed herself, she explained to me what a boob is. :oops:
The thing is, in Barbados boob doesn't mean that. To my knowledge, "boob" here simply means someone who says or does silly things.

Another word that means something totally different here than what it means in the US is "pooch". It took me years to get accustomed to hearing people refer to a dog by that term on TV shows. Here in Barbados, "pooch" means... well, one's rear end! :lol:

(Thankfully, Mom never called me a pooch.)
0 likes   

User avatar
DanKellFla
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1291
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:02 pm
Location: Lake Worth, Florida

#18 Postby DanKellFla » Sat May 09, 2009 6:35 pm

I think when somebody is referred to as a "Boob" that phrase is derived from the behavior of a Booby, which is a bird.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby

Before this incident, it was a secret that women have nipples. She did a great service to this country by

wait for it





*exposing the cover-up.* :D
0 likes   

User avatar
abajan
S2K Supporter
S2K Supporter
Posts: 4230
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 5:10 am
Location: Barbados

Re:

#19 Postby abajan » Sat May 09, 2009 7:16 pm

DanKellFla wrote:I think when somebody is referred to as a "Boob" that phrase is derived from the behavior of a Booby, which is a bird.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby...
In years past, Barbadians (a.k.a. Bajans) used to call Humming Birds "Dr. Boobies" (I'm clueless as to why we called them that) but I haven't heard anyone refer to them by that name lately. And a humming bird is nowhere near the size of the Booby pictured in your link.

BTW, in Barbados what you guys call boobs, we (especially the older folk) call "bubbies".
0 likes   

User avatar
Category 5
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 10074
Age: 35
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:00 pm
Location: New Brunswick, NJ
Contact:

Re:

#20 Postby Category 5 » Sat May 09, 2009 7:37 pm

mf_dolphin wrote:Anyone who thinks that it was a wardrobe malfunction needs to seek help. It was painfully obvious that it was scripted and planned.


:clap:

THANK YOU!
0 likes   


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests