Fined $550k for a breast by Hjermsted

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Fined $550k for a breast

POSTED BY: HJERMSTED
UPDATED: Thursday, September 23, 2004 09:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2987
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 11:33 AM

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1491293/20040922/jackson_janet.jhtml?
headlines=true

Is it just me, or does anyone else think CBS should fight this fine all the way to the Supreme Court? Why isn't Janet Jackson standing up for her breast?!

For cryin' out loud! Women have breasts! There's nothing "obscene" about them. Even if they're naked and on TV. GET over it!!!!!

How can we wrest control of this country back from the sweaty clutches of the Puritans?!?!

Europeans, everyone else on Earth, please stop laughing at America. Pretty please!? It seems to be making things worse over here.

Sorry just had to vent.

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 11:45 AM

GOJIRO

Well, one breast leads to two breasts, which leads to the fall of Western Civilization. Dogs and cats living together -- MASS HYSTERIA!

I'm sure all you non-US browncoats are shaking your heads in wonderment. I wish I could explain it, but I can't. It's OK to see Dennis Franz's naked ass on TV, but not Janet Jackson's boob? What gorram sense does that make? (Rhetorical question, folks, cuz it just don't make no sense no how).

But don't cry for CBS, Argentina. Considering they get a couple million bucks per 30 second superbowl ad, this fine amounts to a slap on the wrist. Oh, sure, they'll wail and gnash their teeth, but in private they'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

And Janet just beat out Halle Berry for having the most expensive pair of tah-tahs. At $550k for one, she's got a million dollar pair of hooters!

gojiro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 12:02 PM

CONSCIENCE

HERE IS A LIST OF SOME OF THE MOST INFORMATIVE WEBSITES!!!

http://www.boycottmtv.com/

http://www.frc.org/

http://www.family.org/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 2:36 PM

CALHOUN

Janet Jackson does indeed appear to have breasts...

Am I the only one to find her unattractive?

Gimme Jennifer Hawking (Miss Universe- she heralds from my suburb:)) anyday.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 2:52 PM

BIKISDAD

Quote:
Originally posted by gojiro:
Well, one breast leads to two breasts, which leads to the fall of Western Civilization. Dogs and cats living together -- MASS HYSTERIA!

I'm sure all you non-US browncoats are shaking your heads in wonderment. I wish I could explain it, but I can't. It's OK to see Dennis Franz's naked ass on TV, but not Janet Jackson's boob? What gorram sense does that make? (Rhetorical question, folks, cuz it just don't make no sense no how).

But don't cry for CBS, Argentina. Considering they get a couple million bucks per 30 second superbowl ad, this fine amounts to a slap on the wrist. Oh, sure, they'll wail and gnash their teeth, but in private they'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

And Janet just beat out Halle Berry for having the most expensive pair of tah-tahs. At $550k for one, she's got a million dollar pair of hooters!

gojiro

Actually, I just saw on the news (who knows how accurate that is?) that the fine was $550,000 PER STATION for 20 particular CBS stations. If that's correct, then the total fine is $11 million for one breast! That makes Jackson's worth $22 million.

I don't know for sure about the $11 million figure. It's just what was reported on the local news (not known for being incredibly accurate).

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 3:37 PM

HKCAVALIER

This is from the article:

The notice's total of $550,000 comes from the FCC fining 20 Viacom-owned CBS affiliates the maximum of $27,500 for broadcasting the incident.

It is generally observed that fascism is inconsistant with open, healthy sexuality. I gotta go now, I don't wanna miss the three minute hate.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 3:42 PM

BIKISDAD

Figures my local news got it wrong. They mix up stuff like that all the time - to the point where I have a hard time believing anything they say - notice the caveats in my first post?

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:36 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
Is it just me, or does anyone else think CBS should fight this fine all the way to the Supreme Court? Why isn't Janet Jackson standing up for her breast?!

For cryin' out loud! Women have breasts! There's nothing "obscene" about them. Even if they're naked and on TV. GET over it!!!!!

I wouldn't fight it, it would just cost alot more money and the Supreme Court has been very clear that freedom of speech does have limitations. The Govt is allowed to place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.

For example, you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater or give the finger to your ex-abused spouse who is protected by a Civil Protection Order (ok, the latter case is pending, but I argued it and I'm gonna win).

The $550k was the maximum fine. Seems to me that it might be worth it to see some nice TV breastage.

My question is why there was no fine against Oprah for a couple over the line shows she did last season or against ABC for the uncut version of Schindler's List. Its only fair if everybody suffers.

Quote:

How can we wrest control of this country back from the sweaty clutches of the Puritans?!?!

Its not that bad. Real puritan countries like Iran would have made use of various forms of torture, mutilation, and death to make the same point. The Europeans allow just about anything on the air, anytime. Seems that between those two extremes, we are a happy compromise.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 8:49 AM

HJERMSTED

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Its not that bad. Real puritan countries like Iran would have made use of various forms of torture, mutilation, and death to make the same point. The Europeans allow just about anything on the air, anytime. Seems that between those two extremes, we are a happy compromise.

H

I wouldn't refer to the European standards re: nudity as extreme... in fact, I'd call the general acceptance of nudity over there (in some places... not all) to be the moderate pragmatic shame-free stance everyone should adopt toward their bodies. The extreme opposite of pure puritanicalism (totally hidden sexuality) would be daily orgies in the streets which does NOT happen in europe -- not even in Amsterdam!

I guess it all depends how you frame any particular debate... For example, on the abortion issue, it seems to me that the extreme opposite of a society where abortions are outlawed would be a society where abortions are mandated by the government (ie China). In that light, we see that allowing a woman or couple the right to choose for themselves whether or not to be parents is the moderate pragmatic position... not the extreme opposite of what the religious right believes at all.

Only in a country run by extremists do you find topical debates skewed to the point where the true moderate position is considered to be an extreme. It just shows you how far to the right the politics in the US have shifted since the 1960s when the last progressive political reforms (at the federal level) took place here.

mattro

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 9:09 AM

CREVANREAVER

Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
Janet Jackson...Am I the only one to find her unattractive?

No you are not. I'm right there with you. Jant Jackson is everything but good looking. Her fat ass needs to go on a diet. She should should go on the same diet her perverted brother MJ is on, he's stick thin.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 23, 2004 9:54 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
I wouldn't refer to the European standards re: nudity as extreme... in fact, I'd call the general acceptance of nudity over there (in some places... not all) to be the moderate pragmatic shame-free stance everyone should adopt toward their bodies. The extreme opposite of pure puritanicalism (totally hidden sexuality) would be daily orgies in the streets which does NOT happen in europe -- not even in Amsterdam!

On one side are people who don't want to see anything, on the other are those who want to allow everything. Those are two extremes. We are in the middle, meaning we want to see as much as we can.

I understand your point of view. Trying to redefine extreme liberalism as being moderate is a typical liberal attitude. It helps justify radical oppisition to mainstream conservatism. Its like calling the number 80 the middle of a 100 point scale. It aint true and throws off all the math.

This is why the liberals are in such trouble. The Democratic party caters to those in the 80-100 range on the political scale and forget about the majority of Democrats who fall in the 55-75 range. Republicans may face a similar problem in 2008 because the most prominant candidates are all moderates.

Quote:

Only in a country run by extremists do you find topical debates skewed to the point where the true moderate position is considered to be an extreme. It just shows you how far to the right the politics in the US have shifted since the 1960s when the last progressive political reforms (at the federal level) took place here.

I disagree. I often wonder "Where is the Democratic Party of my youth?" I'm a Republican, but my sister is a West Virginia soccer mom. She's pro-choice, pro-labor, and pro-education. Yet she voted for Bush in 2000 and will happily do so again. Why? Because he's closer to her political values then the Democratic Party and John Kerry. She's blue collar who loves her tax cut. She's watched as the monolithic Democratic govt of her state (West Virginia) tried to shut down the state's leading industries (coal, timber), bankrupt the state education system, and run every single Doctor out of business. With every failure the party adopted a more radical liberal agenda.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE