Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Jackal1 on September 11, 2007, 03:02:57 AM
-
Did you ever in your wildest dream think that Janet Jackson`s breast would be one of your expenses?
Well............it is now.
This is the kind of crap your tax dollars are paying for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Super Bowl striptease back on stage
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer Mon Sep 10, 2:40 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court on Tuesday will consider whether a notorious "wardrobe malfunction" that bared singer Janet Jackson's breast during a televised 2004 Super Bowl halftime show was indecent, or merely a fleeting and accidental glitch that shouldn't be punished.
The case is the second recent test of the federal government's powers to regulate broadcast indecency. Last June, a federal appeals court in New York invalidated the government's policy on fleeting profanities uttered over the airwaves.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia will hear arguments about the Feb. 1, 2004 halftime show when 90 million Americans watched singer Justin Timberlake pull off part of Janet Jackson's bustier, briefly exposing one of her breasts. The episode was later explained as a problem with her costume.
The FCC fined CBS Corp. $550,000. CBS challenged the fine, claiming "fleeting, isolated or unintended" images should not automatically be considered indecent. The agency noted it has long held that "even relatively fleeting references may be found indecent where other factors contribute to a finding of patent offensiveness."
The case is being argued at a time when the Federal Communications Commission's enforcement regime regarding broadcast indecency is in a state of flux. The government is considering whether to take the profanity case to the Supreme Court. At the same time, Congress is working on a legislative remedy.
The agency is hoping it will fare better in Philadelphia than it did in New York.
In that case, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected by a 2-1 vote the agency's polices on indecent speech. The case involved two airings of the "Billboard Music Awards," in which expletives were broadcast over the airwaves.
The court rejected the FCC's policy on procedural grounds, but was "skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its fleeting expletive regime that would pass constitutional muster."
The U.S. Office of the Solicitor General, which argues cases on behalf of federal agencies, asked for a 30-day extension to decide whether it will appeal that case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, in July, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved the "Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act," sponsored by Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark. The act would require the FCC "to maintain a policy that a single word or image may be considered indecent."
Such a law would neatly encompass both suits. But if it passed, it would not be retroactive. The American Civil Liberties Union said the bill "could have serious and damaging effects on the First Amendment." A companion bill is said to be in the works on the House side.
With Congress occupied by Iraq and other pressing issues, it is hard to say whether the bill will become law, but it has bipartisan support, and Congress has been eager to pass tough broadcast indecency laws in the past.
Regardless, indecency enforcement at the agency is in a holding pattern. The FCC has not proposed a fine since March of 2006.
"There are still hundreds of thousands of indecency complaints languishing at FCC," said Dan Isett, director of Corporate and Governmental Affairs for anti-indecency crusader the Parents Television Council. "A great deal of them have nothing to do with fleeting profanity."
As it stands, the FCC must look to its previous standard on unsavory language, which requires context be considered. The word must be a description of "sexual or excretory activities" to bring a fine.
Despite the lack of action at the FCC, television programmers say they are being cautious. PBS, for example, says it is providing its member stations with two versions of Ken Burns' World War II documentary this fall — one with profanities, one without.
Arguments are scheduled to get under way at 9:30 a.m. Cameras will not be allowed in the courtroom
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
...This is the kind of crap your tax dollars are paying for.
----------------
...
The FCC fined CBS Corp. $550,000.
That's 550,000 to the government, not 550,000 I have to pay.
That's enough to cover court costs, if the judge rules correctly... the judge is a federal employee isn't he (she)?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That's 550,000 to the government, not 550,000 I have to pay.
That's enough to cover court costs, if the judge rules correctly... the judge is a federal employee isn't he (she)?
Court costs? What about umpteen civil servants and contractors beavering away for three years to make the case.
Dear Lord, it's only a tit: 51% of the adult population have them. How can you possibly offended by them?
-
Hey I am just saying that if the judge rules correctly, we can defer some of these costs. If the ruling goes wrong, we won't have a snowball's chance of making a profit.
-
We (the consumer) pay for it all, one way or another.
CBS has higher expenses, it passes those on to its consumers. Namely company's advertising. They take the increased cost and add it to their product.
End result, coffee costs a nickel more at the store.
We the people pay for everything in a case like this. We end up paying CBS's costs, and the government's. Its a total waste of our dollars no matter how you look at it.
-
$550,000 wouldn`t cover the cost of the coffee breaks.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
$550,000 wouldn`t cover the cost of the coffee breaks.
Well if Ghosth is right, it won't pay for them if coffee is a nickle more a cup, that's for sure.
-
:D
The big thing to me is that the stupidity of the whole thing is ridiculous.
Actualy having such silliness go this far to begin with.
-
If I'm paying for it I want to play with it!
-
Originally posted by Pei
Dear Lord, it's only a tit: 51% of the adult population have them. How can you possibly offended by them?
I guess that means the other 49% have dongs. I do not want to see one of those at a half time show either ... maybe you do?
it is called decency. I hope they sue the piss out of them and make an example that is too expensive for the next twit to think they can copy cat such crude behavior.
-
If she actually had nice tits I wouldnt have minded at all.......
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-8/48257/Swoop2.gif)
-
Originally posted by Pei
Dear Lord, it's only a tit: 51% of the adult population have them. How can you possibly offended by them? [/B]
Agreed.
I suspect it was largely to do with the fact that she had a very elaborate piece of nipple jewelery in at the time...
Nipple piercing isn't exactly a desired topic, is it?
Given that she was wearing such a large nipple shield at the time I suspect that the stunt was entirely intended.
Most people would not wear that jewelery for any other reason.... It would not be comfortable or convenient on a day-to-day basis.
I thought it was hilarious but I understand why they're making a case against them.
-
It's not just jackson's boob flashing that is in court right now. They are having problems with the entire obscenity issue including language and need to set guidelines that will both stand the test of the broadcast entities as well as the courts.
As far as paying for the process, they lawyers for the govt. are already on payroll and you pay for them if they work or not.
Frankly, given that this IS a first amendment issue and will have significant repercussions for years to come, I think it does need court scrutiny and a thoughtful well reasoned opinion rendered. The issue needs clarification and to be worked into something that can be readily implemented media wide.
-
Breast Enhancement Surgery= $5,000
Having the wife see the look on my face every time I play motorboat=PRICELESS :aok :aok
-
I for one regret that our freedoms have evolved into a such a sacred urge to defile any and all accepted forms of human decency.
-
Originally posted by Pei
Court costs? What about umpteen civil servants and contractors beavering away for three years to make the case.
Dear Lord, it's only a tit: 51% of the adult population have them. How can you possibly offended by them?
your numbers are waaay off. thanks to guys like this
linky (http://cellar.org/2003/manboobs.jpg)
-
Fact, if it was not some 40-50 year old chicks tit, we wouldnt give a hoot.
WHY is it all these old people wanna flash there fruit and "let everything hang out" YEARS after its no longer ripe?
Why do we need to see your old wrickled titty?
Do me a favor, show your jugg's BEFORE you hit 35+
Mkay, now go jump off somthing high....
See? they bounce back up..and NOTE: NOT AFTER, they hit the floor.
Yeah, its like that.
:aok