High court agrees no indecency fine for CBS "wardrobe malfunction"
Source: Reuters
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday let stand a lower court decision to throw out a federal agency's $550,000 indecency fine against CBS Corp for airing singer Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast.
Jackson's right breast was briefly exposed to almost 90 million TV viewers after singer Justin Timberlake ripped off part of her bustier during a halftime show performance. CBS was fined $27,500 for each of the 20 stations it owned.
The justices, in a brief order, rejected an appeal by the Federal Communications Commission, declining to review a ruling by a U.S. appeals court based in Philadelphia that held the FCC had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in imposing the fine.
The Supreme Court rejected the FCC's appeal in the CBS case after its June 21 ruling in two separate cases that went against the FCC's crackdown on broadcast profanity and nudity. It unanimously ruled the FCC standards were vague and the agency had failed to give fair notice of its indecency policy change.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/29/cbs-janetjackson-court-idUSL2E8HT6RD20120629
Catherine Vincent
(34,491 posts)jpak
(41,760 posts)yup
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)1. Arizona "hate the immigrants" law reduced to "papers please" only. Still an atrocity but a big win.
2. ACA upheld - conservatives in convulsions
3. Janet Jackson "Boobgate" not indecency.
This one always had me scratching my head. There was no evidence this was intentional or that Janet Jackson or CBS had acted negligently that could reasonably be expected to result in her baring her breast. If it was clearly a "malfunction", a mistake, an "accident" if you will, how could you levy a charge of indecency.
Are you telling me that if a woman walks down the street and a sudden gust of wind blows her skirt over her head and she isn't wearing any undergarments she is guilty of indecent exposure?
The Montana extension of CU excepted, these few cases are ones with which I agree with the Court.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Accidents happen. Our Puritanical cousins would have a fit here in the UK.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I cannot believe how ass-backwards and puritanically inept our society has become.
Boobies.
Big deal.
I got em, you got em, we all got boobies!
mysuzuki2
(3,521 posts)It's not like the sight of a breat is going to hurt anybody. How much public money was spent on this I wonder.
Response to mysuzuki2 (Reply #6)
Post removed
louis-t
(23,297 posts)Eight years ago!
solarman350
(136 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)they just showed their asses over the Supreme Court decision.