Wardrobe Malfunction, Obscenity Or Censorship Malfunction?
from the fcc-appeals dept
Earlier this year, a court tossed out the FCC's fine on CBS for Janet Jackson's infamous Superbowl half time show "wardrobe malfunction." As the court noted, the FCC's reasoning for the fine showed an arbitrary decision that did not fit with any existing guidelines. However, it appears the FCC disagrees and is now appealing the ruling to the Supreme Court, saying that it was the court, not the FCC, that misapplied indecency rules. Of course, we're still wondering why this matters nearly five years after the incident.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fcc, indecency, janet jackson, obscenity, wardrobe malfunction
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There's a lot of people wondering why it even mattered in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not fine Janet and Justin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not fine Janet and Justin?
> them who did it?
Because they aren't broadcasters. The law only holds the broadcaster liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This could be a good thing
It seems totally arbitrary and I'm chalking it up to Protestant and Quaker values that date back to the colonies. Even that seems a bit strange/far fetched but its the only excuse I can see.
It's like Left4Dead. We can have a game full of zombies that you have to kill before they eat you, but the second someone mentions kids got turned into zombies and you can kill kid zombies they freak out and threaten to ban the game.
It's like, hello, the zombies don't look much like people. Walking dead things tend to be a bit creepy and not human looking even if they have the general shape.
Blah. Censorship is retarded. You can't shelter people from things without them turning out deformed in some way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waste of Time and Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boobies
Being a Christian myself - I'm sorry to say, I think it's our fault. We're brought up that any mention of sex in any context is shameful, even something so benign as simple nudity. So, when we see it - unexpectedly - we are instantly take out of our comfort zone.
The complaints are from people who took it personally - who feel that they should always be in their comfort zone. They don't care that it was Janet, or if it was on purpose or not. A little warning is all they were looking for, but we all know that isn't possible for every instance.
The point is, that if America wasn't so careful to censor nudity, it wouldn't be a big deal - and in Janet's case, funny, not offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naked
Heck, if the FCC had it's way, they'd give the death penalty for anyone being naked anywhere at anytime and being retroactive. This would be the benefit of making mass genocide of the human race an obscenity issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, the FCC's system of making up rules as it goes should absolutely be thrown out.
It still matters (5 years after the incident) because it sets a precedent these matters especially as they relate to live television.
(Note that basically makes me in favor of whatever they want to show as long as it's rated appropriately.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
inb4 tl;dr
"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC
No, it most certainly is not. That may be what they've ended up doing but it's not their job, nor their mandate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, that would explain our Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whats the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whats the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now in this case, it was an accident - but broadcasters have to be accountable for this, which will cause them to put better process in place to prevent it in the future.
Before you attack with "what's wrong with nudity", don't bother... go read the volumes that have been written by secular psychologists on the impact of pornography on long term relationships. For those who think long term loyal monogamous relationships are old-fashioned... go have your unrestricted pleasure - just stay away from my kids.
Lastly, for those who think the FCC rules are arbitrary, and in some cases silly (no nudity, but lots of gratuitous sex as long as they don't show the nipple) - I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: part of the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getreal
Perfect example .... "nudity" does NOT equal "pornography" There was more pornography going on in the rest of the halftime show that did NOT include nudity ...... you should be ashamed of letting your child watch Justin and Janet dry hump each other on stage .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nudity is not pornography, not by any stretch of your Puritanical imagination. And there was no nudity involved here. Can you say "straw man?"
For those who think long term [sic] loyal monogamous relationships are old-fashioned... go have your unrestricted pleasure - just stay away from my kids.
WTF? Who said anything about "unrestricted pleasure" or "monogamous relationships?" This was not on-screen sex, nor was it advocating promiscuity or polygamy. Maybe you should just not watch TV with your children at all, because you seem to have a seriously warped perspective. Do you work for the FCC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Many European cultures are a lot more lax about nudity than the US is, and in many, things like nude beaches are common. Nudity is to be expected and children don't learn to equate nudity with sex.
I've seen the effect first hand of children being brought up (not by me) without nudity being taboo in their home. The kids are great kids, and I've seen no signs that their morality is far from that of most college age kids these days -- and perhaps they are sexually even a bit conservative.
So, I find all this commotion around seeing part of a breast kind of silly. It happened, no one was harmed by the experience, now get over it people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get Reals Comments
Whether it was an accident or on purpose, what really happened here? A semi nude boob flashed for about a second or 2. Does it really damage your kid? No. He/she can see boobs on Nat geographic half the day. Secondly, I would never read anything by a secular psychologist, cause like you, I'm sure anything thats written is presented from YOUR view point.
While I do agree that if you don't want to see something like this on TV, a proper rating should be in place. If you don't like it/don't want to watch it, you can make your own informed decision accordingly. However assuming that this was an accident, and investigated properly, do you think a million dollar fine should be enough? Accidents happen. A company can take every precaution in the world and STILL HAVE SOMETHING GO WRONG. Why should they be persecuted for it???
This is a free country. Lets try and remember that. If I choose to want to watch sex & violence that should be my choice. Not you deciding for me. If you decide thats NOT what YOU want to watch, then so be it. Who am I to tell you how to live (just as who are you to tell me how to live).
Overall this is just another example of a department of government who thinks that they can do whatever they want and waste the taxpayers money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, but sorry you are a prude for several reasons. First of all, it's your job to parent your kids, not the FCC nor the networks. Yes, it's nice if unsuitable material is avoided, but during a live broadcast you should know that things can - and often do - go wrong. Combine that with the inherent sexuality of pop & rock music, and you end up with a situation where you could have predicted something going wrong. When it did, would your kids have even noticed if it wasn't for the media blitz over the "scandal"?
Coming from a country where streaking was almost a national pastime during the 80s, it's laughable to think that a nation that allows sexualised teenagers in the form of cheerleaders could get this worked up over a nipple. It never ceases to amaze me how you people get your priorities so wrong - yes, you can watch gang members gun each other down in broad daylight, but don't you dare look at a breast like the one you sucked on for 18 months!
"Now in this case, it was an accident - but broadcasters have to be accountable for this, which will cause them to put better process in place to prevent it in the future."
How do they do that exactly? There's no way to prevent accidents if they're truly accidents (though many have doubts about the Jackson incident). Even with delayed broadcasts, things can slip through. Punishing people for honest mistakes does little to prevent them - everybody's human after all.
"Before you attack with "what's wrong with nudity", don't bother... go read the volumes that have been written by secular psychologists on the impact of pornography on long term relationships. For those who think long term loyal monogamous relationships are old-fashioned... go have your unrestricted pleasure - just stay away from my kids."
If all that's true, then why do countries like Sweden and Japan, with very lax attitudes towards sex and even fetishes, have relatively low rates of rape and other sexual crime? If pornography is so bad, why have rates of sexual violence in the US decreased over the time that the web's been available (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm)? Surely, if porn caused sexual crime, those rates would have rocketed since the mid-90s?
As for "stay away from your kids"... well stay away from everyone else. People like you constantly try to censor and control others, "for the children" while being oblivious to the fact that those of us who haven't decided to breed (or have done so, but manage to censor our own households) have the same rights as your rugrats.
"Lastly, for those who think the FCC rules are arbitrary, and in some cases silly (no nudity, but lots of gratuitous sex as long as they don't show the nipple) - I agree."
Cognitive dissonance much? So, according to the rest of your post, you think that even a flash of a nipple is inappropriate and the FCC, the Superbowl organisers and broadcasters have to held accountable, lest your kids turn out to be adulterous rapists. Yet, you denounce the rules that would dictate such censorship as arbitrary? Make up your f***ing mind!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It Matters
That's why it matters!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It Matters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nudity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE Get Real's Comments
Yes Justin?
Is That Yer tit?
Yes Justin!
That was an accident wasn't it?
Yes Justin!
We won't get in trouble, Janet?
No Justin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]