FCC, CBS Continue To Battle Over Janet Jackson Reveal

[alp227]

The FCC, backed by the Justice Department, says that broadcasters give up full First Amendment status when they get a government license, and so should be subject to government regulation of swearing and nudity when kids could be watching.

That was the gist of the FCC's supplemental brief to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing its earlier decision that the FCC's $550,000 fine of CBS for Janet Jackson's partially exposed breast on the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show broadcast was arbitrary and capricious.

The Third Circuit had sought input on whether, if CBS was found to have knowledge of the "reveal," the FCC should be applying the criminal or civil recklessness standard. The FCC argues it should be the latter, which would mean CBS could be culpable even if it was not aware of what Jackson and Justin Timberlake were going to do, so long as it should have been aware. The criminal recklessness standard applies only if CBS had been aware of the risk and chose to disregard it.

Full story: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/461513-FCC_CBS_Continue_To_Battle_Over_Janet_Jackson_Reveal.php

Speaking of the FCC, Al Sharpton appeared on MSNBC's The Ed Show last Thursday continuing his advocacy for the FCC to regulate hate speech by Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio hosts. Sharpton also appeared on Ed earlier this month. So if the FCC says that a government license does NOT guarantee "full First Amendment status," the FCC can't pick and choose what kind of content is indecent. In September 2004, the FCC fined CBS $550,000 for the Janet Jackson incident despite allowing all the bigotry by Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage etc. CBS paid the fine in 2006 in order to appeal in the federal court. Although the court threw out the fine in 2008, the next year the Supreme Court vacated that ruling. (more info: Wikipedia)

How is it that government-licensed broadcasters not getting full First Amendment status meet "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech"? I'm not in favor of allowing hardcore porn to be shown on public airwaves at 12 noontime. But what should the government do in response to fleeting utterances of bad words or brief glimpses of private parts?

[ck4829]

1. Don't you know that there are children who are STILL traumatized by that awful incident?

:sarcasm:

If humanity is still here a thousand years from now, this event will probably be in the history books, probably because of the sheer amount of material on it.

[Warpy]

2. And the total absurdity of it

The look on Jackson's face said it all, but these men who are all fighting over it have obviously never looked at her face.

Timberlake ripped her costume, either accidentally or on purpose. She wasn't in on it. Then he weaseled out of he whole thing and blamed her.

In any case, I don't think CBS should be fined for an apparent accident and it remains an accident until and unless Timberlake grows a pair and fesses up. Certainly Jackson should never have been made to suffer over it.

But yes, nursing infants and toddlers should never be exposed to a bare breast. They'll be traumatized for life.