Court tosses FCC 'wardrobe malfunction' fine

advertisement

PHILADELPHIA — 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."

The 3rd Circuit judges — Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Judge Marjorie O. Rendell and Judge Julio M. Fuentes — also ruled that the FCC deviated from its long-held approach of applying identical standards to words and images when reviewing complaints of indecency.

"The Commission's determination that CBS's broadcast of a nine-sixteenths of one second glimpse of a bare female breast was actionably indecent evidenced the agency's departure from its prior policy," the court found. "Its orders constituted the announcement of a policy change — that fleeting images would no longer be excluded from the scope of actionable indecency."

In a statement Monday, CBS said it hoped the decision "will lead the FCC to return to the policy of restrained indecency enforcement it followed for decades."

"This is an important win for the entire broadcasting industry because it recognizes that there are rare instances, particularly during live programming, when it may not be possible to block unfortunate fleeting material, despite best efforts," the network said.

The FCC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a group of TV writers, directors and producers, said the ruling "is an important advance for preserving creative freedom on the air."

"The court agreed with us: the FCC's inconsistent and unexplained departure from prior decisions leaves artists and journalists confused as to what is, and is not, permissible," Schwartzman said in a statement Monday.

But Tim Winter of the watchdog organization Parents Television Council said the court's decision "borders on judicial stupidity."

"If a striptease during the Super Bowl in front of 90 million people — including millions of children — doesn't fit the parameters of broadcast indecency, then what does?" Winter said in a statement.

The FCC had argued that Jackson's nudity, albeit fleeting, was graphic and explicit and CBS should have been forewarned. Jackson has said the decision to add a costume reveal — exposing her right breast, which had only a silver sunburst "shield" covering her nipple — came after the final rehearsal.

At the time, broadcasters did not employ a video delay for live events, a policy remedied within a week of the game.

In challenging the fine, CBS said that "fleeting, isolated or unintended" images should not automatically be considered indecent.

But the FCC said Jackson and Timberlake were employees of CBS and that the network should have to pay for their "willful" actions, given its lack of oversight.

The $550,000 fine represents the maximum $27,500 levied against each of the network's 20 owned-and-operated stations.

Shortly after the 2004 Super Bowl, the FCC changed its policy on fleeting indecency following an NBC broadcast of the Golden Globes awards show on which U2 lead singer Bono uttered an unscripted expletive. The FCC said at the time that the "F-word" in any context "inherently has a sexual connotation" and can trigger enforcement.

NBC challenged the decision, but that case has yet to be resolved.

In June 2007, a federal appeals court in New York invalidated the government's policy on fleeting profanities uttered over the airwaves in a case involving remarks by Cher and Nicole Richie on awards shows carried on Fox stations. The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall.

___

On the Net:

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063575p.pdf

  • 21 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
13
4.9
{"commentId":2242169,"authorDomain":"ulicnyp001"}

Can we see that again, please, slowly !!

{"commentId":2242169,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"ulicnyp001"}
  • 6 votes
Reply#1 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:46 AM EDT
{"commentId":2242469,"authorDomain":"evanevans5"}

OMG. That was so gross! At the time, it was the most reviewed playback
Tivo ever had (did I say that right) and it happened so fast I can see why. Everyone was looking at each other saying "Did that just happen?" But when I actually saw it again, in slow motion, I was horrified.

I can understand a fine, but not that steep. And even then, I think JJ and JT should have been the ones fined.

{"commentId":2242469,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"evanevans5"}
  • 4 votes
#1.1 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:34 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":2242263,"authorDomain":"caroaber"}

I only regret that CBS was forced to pay mounting legal fees in order to fight this arbitrary and capricious fine over the last 4 years. Who at the FCC will take responsibility for that blunder? Does the buck stop at Colin Powell's son, the fellow with no previous media experience who suddenly became a regulator?

{"commentId":2242263,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"caroaber"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#2 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:03 AM EDT
{"commentId":2242393,"authorDomain":"mscyprah"}
Does the buck stop at Colin Powell's son, the fellow with no previous media experience who suddenly became a regulator?

There's nothing more destructive than people trying to prove their suitability and 'impartiality' in a role and acting high handedly in the process.

{"commentId":2242393,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"mscyprah"}
  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:23 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":2242312,"authorDomain":"RETLAW"}

I find the whole thing just to be a media side show. Not worth spending any time on !!!

{"commentId":2242312,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"RETLAW"}
  • 8 votes
Reply#3 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:11 AM EDT
{"commentId":2242381,"authorDomain":"mscyprah"}

My goodness, common sense is ruling at last!!! What a ridiculous fine.

{"commentId":2242381,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"mscyprah"}
  • 7 votes
Reply#4 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:21 AM EDT
{"commentId":2244262,"authorDomain":"mikewarren-us"}
Michael WarrenDeleted
{"commentId":2245043,"authorDomain":"evilgenius"}
Some of us have had wrong done to ourselves in the past. The victim of robbery, scams, and rapes. That's when we see how important it is for us to have morals, and set limits.

Are you really equating seeing a split second of boob on tv to the cause of rape?

{"commentId":2245043,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"evilgenius"}
  • 3 votes
#4.2 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:52 PM EDT
{"commentId":2256977,"authorDomain":"mscyprah"}
Some of us have had wrong done to ourselves in the past. The victim of robbery, scams, and rapes. That's when we see how important it is for us to have morals, and set limits.

Mmmm...there is nothing like taking the moral high ground and judging people from afar, Michael. Resist the temptation to pretend only people like yourselves have been victims. You could be in for a huge surprise. :o(

By the way, I do take a firm stand on quite a few issues but judging my fellows, condemning them, vilifying them, pretending I am better than they are and being malicious rather than compassionate, are not among them.

I promise that just for you, and others who might be equally patronising, I will keep the jail doors firmly shut. :o)

{"commentId":2256977,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"mscyprah"}
  • 1 vote
#4.3 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:10 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":2242850,"authorDomain":"jamesmirick"}

I find it so idiotic that, given all the cheap sexual innuendo that's the mainstay of network TV any more, somebody would find that 9/16ths of a second of an ACTUAL BREAST to be so offensive. Perhaps if they saw more bare breasts, American mails wouldn't grow up with such an overwhelming fetish of them. It's this whole dismal media circus that discourages so many women from breast-feeding their babies, to the great detriment of the babies.

{"commentId":2242850,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"jamesmirick"}
  • 9 votes
Reply#5 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:33 AM EDT
{"commentId":2242904,"authorDomain":"mcrutchfield"}

Awesome.
Now, can the court please rule on why the FCC gets to regulate content at all? Seems to me that the job of this group is to regulate the radio waves. You know, make sure different cordless phones are on different frequencies, two companies don't use the same tv channel. Why these politicians are telling us what we can and can't see (in a country that loves to claim to the world how free it is) is beyond me.
I maintain, if you don't like what's on your tv, TURN IT OFF.

{"commentId":2242904,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"mcrutchfield"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#6 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:40 AM EDT
{"commentId":2243703,"authorDomain":"Starlight"}

IIRC, The reason the FCC gets to regulate the first 13 channels is that they own the frequencies they broadcast at. They generally can't regular cable or satellite because that would be a violation of freedom of speech, but they can regulate what they own to an extent.

{"commentId":2243703,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"Starlight"}
  • 1 vote
#6.1 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:24 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":2244219,"authorDomain":"mikewarren-us"}
Michael WarrenDeleted
{"commentId":2244743,"authorDomain":"srowell"}

How come Janet was the only one who suffered flack for this? As a Black woman, I'm offended that she was treated like she was the only one on the stage when it was JUSTIN's freaking song in the first place and she was just helping him out. No one said word one about that! I don't blame her for not speaking to him anymore cause he threw her under the bus. And I say SCREW the FCC - they're full of it anyway. You have all these commercials on TV about male enhancement and the things they say in these commercials is offensive to some people, but because it's about MONEY, they're okay. Why do little kids need to know about male enhancement or Viva Viagra?????

{"commentId":2244743,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"srowell"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#8 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:20 PM EDT
{"commentId":2245012,"authorDomain":"reidje"}

Oh My God! There was actually a female breast on TV! I guess we'll all have to put out our eyes so the blind can be leading the blind. Lets forget the fact that this took place during the halftime show of a sport where the idea is to punish your opponent as much as you possibly can, within reason.

Lets see, would I rather my kid saw sex or violence on TV. I'll take sex.

BTW, I like football. I'm just amazed at the number of people who find sex to be unnatural as opposed to violence being the norm. Can you say repressed?

{"commentId":2245012,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"reidje"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#9 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:49 PM EDT
{"commentId":2256985,"authorDomain":"mscyprah"}
BTW, I like football. I'm just amazed at the number of people who find sex to be unnatural as opposed to violence being the norm. Can you say repressed?

Hear, hear, Jonathan. Warped or wot?

{"commentId":2256985,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"mscyprah"}
  • 2 votes
#9.1 - Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":2246041,"authorDomain":"lexicon-devil1"}

Nawh Jonathan, People PRETEND to be outraged. Ever met someone in real life that really was offended by Janet, or any other women's, breast? Especially, gulp, a man? If they said they are, were their Mom, girlfriend or wife in the same room with them?

As a women, I take the stance of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander". Women should be able to enjoy the masculine form of nudity, too! Should nudity ever become standard, men ought to 'undress' as well......and I don't just mean showing off their (un)toned butts!

I, also, would like to point out that if this subject become all about the "kid's", that if you don't want them to see nudity, violence or anything else, TURN OFF THE TV! It's called parenting people. Yes, I do have a child, a boy aged 11.

The FCC fine was stupid. It was an accident, no one was traumatized by it. Time to move on! Decency, quality or inappropriateness, sheesh, have you watched TV in the last decade or two?

{"commentId":2246041,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"lexicon-devil1"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#10 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:21 PM EDT
{"commentId":2246740,"authorDomain":"darkknightjrk"}

CBS might say they won, but TRUE decency and common sense won out today. The only way this would be better is if the case was literally laughed out of the court.

{"commentId":2246740,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"darkknightjrk"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#11 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:27 PM EDT
{"commentId":2247402,"authorDomain":"roybatty"}

Oh boy, more fodder now for America's Funniest Home Videos. I am so tired of watching men get kicked in the nuts. Bring on the boobs!

{"commentId":2247402,"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041","authorDomain":"roybatty"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#12 - Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:43 PM EDT
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"316743","isPrivate":false}
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
{"threadId":"316743","contentId":"1683041"}
Start TrackingStart Tracking
Stop TrackingStop Tracking