Once Again Court Says FCC Can't Fine Janet Jackson For Wardrobe Malfunction
from the fleeting-fcc-rules dept
A few days late on this one (just didn't have the time to get to it last week), but the 3rd Circuit appeals court did pretty much exactly what most people expected in rejecting the FCC's fine of CBS for Janet Jackson's famous "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl. As we've been covering, the FCC (mainly under the Kevin Martin regime) tried to crack down on "indecency" with some questionable fines, all of which have been thrown out one by one. There was the fleeting expletives case and the Charlotte Ross's naked butt case, both of which ended up with the FCC losing, so this latest ruling wasn't much of a surprise.The FCC had already lost this case for its rules being "arbitrary and capricious," but the Supreme Court had asked the court to reconsider its ruling, following the fleeting expletives ruling. However, the court here points out that, basically, nothing in that ruling changes anything about how the court feels about the wardrobe malfunction, and (if anything) it just reinforces the position it already took. The interesting thing, however, may be that the earlier decision was unanimous -- and the judge who wrote that decision, Anthony Scirica, actually changed his mind on the case this time around. He dissented, while the others on the panel upheld their earlier ruling, arguing that the FCC's claim that while its "fleeting expletives" policy had changed, it's position on nudity had never changed, was not at all compelling. The dissent, from Scirica, more or less buys the FCC's claim that broadcasters give up 1st Amendment rights and also argues that there's no evidence of a real policy change here.
Either way, this triumverate of cases may not be complete yet as the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in again on these cases on the First Amendment question (separate from the 'arbitrary and capricious' question). So, fear not, we'll still have more to talk about with all of these cases...
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: arbitrary and capricious, fcc, first amendment, janet jackson, obscenity
Companies: cbs
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cautiously optimistic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Bergman on Nov 7th, 2011 @ 4:45pm
But I believe the FCC feels that the airwaves are a public resource that they control and when you purchase the right to use said public resources you also agree to give up certain rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Bergman on Nov 7th, 2011 @ 4:45pm
Now excuse me while I go sit down in the Madison Family Cemetery. I like to listen to the hum of James as he spins in his grave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parent Television Council
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parent Television Council
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parent Television Council
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Parent Television Council
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Parent Television Council
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parent Television Council
I love how that article keeps saying that "adults" were exposed to the sight of Jackson's breast. I have to wonder why supposedly normal adults have such a problem with briefly seeing a breast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've said it before...
If they want to rate the Super Bowl TV-MA, that's fine. But then I won't be watching it. Otherwise, have content appropriate for a family show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've said it before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've said it before...
I always found it highly amusing to get looks from idiots like PRMan when my wife breastfed in public places. I'd just stare challengingly at the imbeciles and dare them to say something about one of the most natural things on earth.
Suffice to say these Internet cowards never dared actually say anything in person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've said it before...
That thing is hardcore porn. Not that I care I'm just surprised people accept that as normal and get all pumped up about a wardrobe malfunction, the good thing is that they are going after the entertainment industry and will help them hang themselves with the same ropes they are trying to use to hang others.
Third party liability will be a bitch to pay in this occasions.
Any musician that dares to do something out of line will have their labels and business partners forced to drop business with them, oh that would be funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've said it before...
Boobies, breasts, Tatas, mammories. Big deal. Oh my kids might... Family... Blah blah blah. So silly. Other countries laugh at us. War violence, sports violence, the daily news, thousands of ads with women in just about nothing. But G forbit if a tit falls out, or an f-bomb gets dropped. Mixed messages much? So silly.
At least it was fit Janet and not fat Janet. I would have looked either way though. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've said it before...
I'll bet you're one of those idiots who has no problem letting your kids see people get robbed and shot on prime time TV, but think that a part of the human body must be evil. You're and idiot, and the rest of the world laugh at you for things like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.tmz.com/2011/09/27/nancy-grace-nipple-slip-dancing-with-the-stars-nip-boob-breast-den ial-petals-sticky-pasties/
Yet, no uproar from FCC, or parents, or tm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: PTC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure somewhere in the world someone made it illegal for some reason and so they are criminals and should be punished and extradited to that jurisdiction to see justice serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A split second viewing of a nipple is porn to you? How can you operate a computer from a 16th century monastery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fine was meant to send a message to the other networks, now what message is being sent? As parents I think it's time we fight back..with out wallets, that's the only thing these corporations understand. I really don't care what they show on CBS at midnight - my child does not watch television then. But, in the middle of a nationally televised sporting event it is inappropriate to expose yourself. Foul lanague should be resevered to late night programming as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you're unwary, you might remind her that everyone is naked under their clothes, and that she herself has breasts -- and nipples!
The horror, the horror!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd be more concerned with your child growing up with the belief that the human body is "dirty" or "indecent". Not only that, but the more taboo you make such things the more they will want to seek them out to see what all the fuss is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]