May 4, 2009

Janet Jackson's breast!

Back in the news, thanks to the Supreme Court.


chuck b. said...

Oh, I'd rather that it not be.

traditionalguy said...

I can't believe they are back again, and I missed the world famous display that has captivated our legal system ever since. Life sucks, but janet nurtures.

MadisonMan said...

Will someone please think of the Children who were forever scarred by her nipple display.

Christy said...

Can the word fleeting be applied to any televised event in a world of TiVo? The show Lost trained an entire generation to examine frame by frame all that passes before our eyes.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Smilin' Jack said...

See, this is why it's so important to appoint really smart people to the SC. We need to be sure we get the right answers to the important questions the SC spends its time on, like exactly where it's OK to put Christmas trees or post the Ten Commandments, or precisely when and under what circumstances it's OK to say "fuck" or show titty on TV. Ordinary brains are simply not capable of the exquisitely precise logical ratiocination, extending over many, many years, that is required to analyze these deep and complex issues. We simply can't afford to appoint a dope to the SC and risk getting the wrong answers to such important questions!

MadisonMan said...

< dorothy voice on >

Comments come and go so quickly here!

< dorothy voice off >

Ron said...

What, some judge had a 'wardrobe malfunction' with those damn robes? Gads, let's not go there!

TituslovesUandU2 said...

I like bouncy tits.

Tits are fun.

Yeah tits.

Let's hear it for the tit.

I want to squish both tits together to form one large tit and then put my head on it and take an afternoon nap.

Yeah tits.


Bissage said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bissage said...

If Janet’s breast

Had been exposed

You’d see no hair

The case is closed

-- Burma Shave

Big Mike said...

There are so many lawyers, law professors, law students and the like who comment on this blog. Can one of you (not all of you, for pity's sake!) explain why it is that CBS got hit with the fine? I happened to see the "wardrobe malfunction" projected on a theater-sized screen in HD (so it was close to life size), but she seemed to be wearing a pasty so I'm pretty sure she and Justin planned the stunt. But why does that make CBS culpable?

rhhardin said...

They ought to impose fines at random on all broadcasters, as a condition of license.

Uncouple it from content completely.

Then it passes Constitutional tests, being more like a reverse lottery or erratic tax.

Republican said...

If Janet were sucking off the government tit, the SCOTUS would not be involved.


Salamandyr said...

It's spelled teat. (pronounced the same though).

*this spelling lesson has been brought to you by the American Dairy Association.

goesh said...

-I too missed the exposed mammary gland, teat for tat

Cedarford said...

This doesn't appear to be a case of Supreme Court Boobery.

I think the Court has recognized that technology has enabled everyone to access a mass media market and that a fully unfettered 1st Amendment licence will allow harm of others rights in other areas, like privacy. It is no longer just limited spectrum airwaves that may need some checks and balances - and that in our democracy, the place to impose carefully considered limits and acceptable norms of conduct is in the Legislatures of a democracy..not in sweeping court diktats.
FCC limits on obscenity and political speech just represent an earlier series of generations applying laws meant to avoid needless disruption of domestic tranquility by "shouting fire in a crowded theater to the revolution of radio and TV broadcasting.

And put in place - with new capacities on Internet, cell phone tweets, robotic mass messaging looming - want the Legislators and the democratic process to be the most suitable agency to have checks and balances erected, and checks and balances removed.

In short, if FCC rules and regs are too strict on boobs, innuendo? Or a cuss word uttered by various non-professionals the broadcaster really has no control over at live events? And the licensed broadcaster is "unfairly" punished by the FCC to the miscues of non-professionals unconsciously cussing or doing so in emotional heat?


Methadras said...

They weren't bad, just kind of flap-jacky.

Republican said...

Teats are for boobs.

Big Mike said...

Okay, let me try again. I don't understand why the fine wasn't levied against Jackson and Timberlake. They knew the show was being broadcast live. By their own admission they planned and even rehearsed Justin's move. Janet appears to have been wearing a pasty. You women can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a pasty is not a comfortable thing to wear, and is therefore not normally worn unless the woman in question expects to expose her mammary gland to the world.

So why is it CBS that got fined? Why not the real perpetrators?

I think Dickens got it right about the law.

Randy said...

just kind of flap-jackySilicon deterioration no doubt.

kentuckyliz said...

Why is a woman's breast obscene?

Janet can legally nurse a baby in public, even showing her full tit.

Or, for titus,


I want the FCC to slap fines on Anderson Cooper and Keith Olbermann et al. for snickering on and on about teabagging.


See, it's breeder hatred, more proof that gay men are in charge.

Scott said...

Yes, we are. Now get back to work.