Giantrobo

Story Here


Wow! Good news indeed.



Court tosses FCC 'wardrobe malfunction' fine
JOANN LOVIGLIO ASSOCIATED PRESS
Originally published 09:34 a.m., July 21, 2008, updated 09:30 a.m., July 21, 2008


PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a $550,000 indecency fine against CBS Corp. for the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show that ended with Janet Jackson's breast-baring "wardrobe malfunction."

The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Communications Commission "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in issuing the fine for the fleeting image of nudity.

The 90 million people watching the Super Bowl, many of them children, heard Justin Timberlake sing, "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song," as he reached for Jackson's bustier.

The court found that the FCC deviated from its nearly 30-year practice of fining indecent broadcast programming only when it was so "pervasive as to amount to 'shock treatment' for the audience."

"Like any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second-guessing," the court said. "But it cannot change a well-established course of action without supplying notice of and a reasoned explanation for its policy departure."

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ A federal appeals court has thrown out a $550,000 fine against CBS Corp. for the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show that ended with Janet Jackson's breast-baring "wardrobe malfunction."

The three-judge panel in Philadelphia ruled Monday that the Federal Communications Commission "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in issuing the fine for the fleeting image of nudity.

The 90 million people watching the Super Bowl, many of them children, heard Justin Timberlake sing, "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song," as he reached for Jackson's bustier.

JPRaup

Interesting, but who cares anymore?

Giantrobo

Uhm, people who GIVE A SHIT ABOUT...Nevermind. If you don't care or can't understand why this is important then stay out of the thread....

Red Dog

It makes quite a difference once you move past the FCC administrative court and get to a more neutral venue.

I definitely care. I'll have to read the opinion.

rfduncan

I'm going to have to fine you for your indecent post with blatant obscenities.

And isn't that original AP news story a little over the top? As I recall, there was no nudity. She was wearing a pasty over her nipple right? Jezz. People are such prudes. At least some judges had the guts to cut it.

Red Dog

3rd Cir. Opinion:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063575p.pdf

Doc Moonlight

I wonder what Congresswoman Heather Wilson has to say...

CPA-ESQ.

This is good news - hopefully this will put the FCC in their place - if they lost this case, I don't know what they will win

hopefully they can start focusing on Cablevision and switched video technology !

dgmayor

She was wearing a ring on her nipple. Basically it was something like a sun that had a ring that went around the nipple to be held on.

link

Giantrobo

But but but..it wasn't a partially visible boob viewed during a Male dominated violent sport.

Timber

Hasn't the damage already been done though? They cracked down on TV and radio after that incident and things haven't been the same since.

Giantrobo

Good point. And this probably won't really change the things that many Media outlets put in place Post-titty gate to stay off of FCC radar.

But it's still a good thing that a court has said that the FCC probably blew this one.

Gunde

FCC is pathetic, the whole idea of an organization regulating and deciding what's ok on tv is pathetic, anyone supporting it is pathetic.

Bandoman

I love it when the courts describe a pop-culture event.

And I didn't realize Janet's right breast was exposed for a whole nine sixteenths of a second!

Ronnie Dobbs

I saw this on CNN and was like, "This is still in the news? really?"

Patman

Anyone see the Espy last night where Justin Timerblake brought back this famous event in his "I like Sports" number?

shaun3000

I care. So do all these guys:


Amen.

Giantrobo

As a poster pointed out the "Damage" from Titty gate is still being felt.

After that event the FCC, responding to the anger of different Family Values Groups and other organizations who're trying to sanitize Media, went a little crazy. It's like Janet's Tit woke up the Beast in the FCC.

Media Companies are scared to death that the FCC will fine them or worse, take their broadcast licenses over obscenity going over the air.

The FCC needs to be put in its place.

milo bloom

For those who wonder why this is important, I'd direct you to the recent bill that gave telecoms and the Bush administration immunity for warrantless wiretapping. That's all I'll say to keep this on topic.

superdeluxe

Doesn't really matter to the Janet Jackson case, but on a bigger scale, this could be huge down the line for other possible situations.

Want to see how strongly the justices worded their opinion.

wmansir

I don't see a victory here.

The basis for the decision was that the FCC's fine was "arbitrary" because the commission had been letting minor "fleeting" explicit material slip by for years. This ruling doesn't strip any of the FCC's power, or even encourage the FCC to become more lax, in fact it does just the opposite. It compels the FCC to pursue even minor offense in order to preserve it's regulatory power. That's just what the FCC did, and that's why the networks cracked down themselves.

Red Dog

Well the ruling forces more consistency from the FCC. While that doesn't mean more lax standards, I would argue that having a more consistent application and interpretation of the 'rules' is a positive.

wishbone

^^^ Agreed.

Brain Stew

Well, there is legitimacy in the technical aspect of the FCC. There's only so much wavelengths to go around, someone has to be in charge of them.

big whoppa

Damn, it takes 4 years to determine this.

Anyway, what is allowed on the air is a lot more permissible than a couple of decades ago. While I don't have a problem with viewing nipples, I don't have young kids. There has to be some sort of standards in place for broadcast TV.