Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Court sends Janet Jackson case back for review

Mon May 4, 2009 10:05 AM EDT
business, politics, entertainment, technology, us, supreme-court, super-bowl, jackson, scotus, fcc, federal-communications-commission, janet-jackson, circuit-court
Associated Press

FILE - In this Sunday Feb. 1, 2004 file photo, entertainer Janet Jackson, left, covers her breast after her outfit came undone during the half time performance with Justin Timberlake at Super Bowl XXXVIII in Houston. The Supreme Court on Monday, May 4, 2009 ordered a federal appeals court to re-examine its ruling in favor of CBS Corp. in a legal fight over entertainer Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. (AP Photo/David Phillip, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a federal appeals court to re-examine its ruling in favor of CBS Corp. in a legal fight over entertainer Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. The high court on Monday directed the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to consider reinstating the $550,000 fine that the Federal Communications Commission imposed on CBS over Jackson's breast-baring performance at the 2004 Super Bowl.

The order follows the high court ruling last week that narrowly upheld the FCC's policy threatening fines against even one-time uses of curse words on live television.

In a statement, CBS said the Supreme Court's decision was not a surprise given last week's ruling and expressed confidence the court will again find the incident was not and could not have been anticipated by the network.

Last year, the appeals court threw out the fine against CBS, saying the FCC strayed from its long-held approach of applying identical standards to words and images when reviewing complaints of indecency.

The appellate court said the incident lasted nine-sixteenths of one second and should have been regarded as "fleeting." The FCC previously 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," the court said.

The FCC appealed to the Supreme Court. The case had been put off while the justices dealt with a challenge led by Fox Television against the FCC's policy on fleeting expletives.

The case is FCC v. CBS Corp., 08-653.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Associated Press's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Open Mic, SexVine, Supreme Court Watch, TV-Guide
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (27)
Kim-298921

All this over a boob. A boob with a piercing and jewelry as big as a coffee saucer.

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Mon May 4, 2009 11:17 AM EDT
SnotRag Dave

I didn't know Justin Timberlake had a piercing.

  • 7 votes
#1.1 - Mon May 4, 2009 11:20 AM EDT
Hugo C. Gonzalez 76

too funny!

Oh I remember this! it was a pretty good 9 sixteenth of a second, long enough to leave the bood imprimted on my mind!

    #1.2 - Mon May 4, 2009 12:35 PM EDT
    Bob Nelson.

    I remember when I first came to Europe (35 years ago), how surprised I was to see -- once in a while -- a fleeting glimpse of a naked breast. Fleeting, but definitely there.

    Nowadays, you get several seconds of bare breasts on commercials for shampoo.

      #1.3 - Mon May 4, 2009 12:51 PM EDT
      dacincykid

      Just goes to show you how stupid theis right wing farce of a court is.

        #1.4 - Mon May 4, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
        jdl-28

        We have no court system if you are a citizens of this country they will alway go again you , but if you are from another country than you go free.

          #1.5 - Mon May 4, 2009 3:40 PM EDT
          onematt4youx4

          Its just a tit. It's not worth 500,000 dollars. It was clearly an accident. Most kids don't even watch the super bowl. And if they did, hell they just got weaned from the breast a month prior. The FCC is probably going bankrupt too, thats why they want her money. I say Jackson should counter sue them for the same amount.

            #1.6 - Mon May 4, 2009 4:18 PM EDT
            Reply
            Tired of F'Ups

            What could be better than football and titties? Seriously, Im so sick of Mommy and Daddy being such killjoys because junior is gonna grow up to be a serial killer once he sees some nip........

            • 2 votes
            Reply#2 - Mon May 4, 2009 11:24 AM EDT
            Rella

            I frankly don't see why CBS should be fined $550,000 for an accident. If I believed it was intentional and known about by CBS, that would be one thing. But it was an accident - they shouldn't be fined for something that was unintentional and that they had no control over.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#3 - Mon May 4, 2009 11:47 AM EDT
            TL-770512

            The incident was hardly an "accident," but I still think it is silly to fine them over a couple of seconds of "almost" bare breast.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#4 - Mon May 4, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
            dacincykid

            I see no reason to think it was not an accident!

            What would the motivation be. Jackson is one of the most popular entertainers in the business and so is Timberlake and the station surely would not put themselves at risk for something as stupid as this. Remember this was the Republican FCC

            • 1 vote
            #4.1 - Mon May 4, 2009 3:44 PM EDT
            TL-770512

            Tear-away breast panels and large nipple jewelry... that's what makes it NOT an accident. If the same had happened but the piece covering her boob had not cleanly come away AND if her full nipple and breast were exposed, I would agree with accident. I think they clearly thought they had "covered" all their bases with the censors... pushing the envelope but thinking they would be able to get a pass.

            • 1 vote
            #4.2 - Wed May 6, 2009 2:33 PM EDT
            Reply
            PastNikeVet-906575Deleted
            Rainkiss

            My husband and I were watching the halftime show, that day. We didn't even see it. (And, trust me, for my husband to miss it, it was VERY "fleeting.")

            • 1 vote
            Reply#6 - Mon May 4, 2009 12:19 PM EDT
            dungbeetlemania

            I cannot believe that this is still going on. Come on people, grow up!

            On another note, why is her boob white?

            • 1 vote
            Reply#7 - Mon May 4, 2009 12:27 PM EDT
            Hugo C. Gonzalez 76

            Michael, need I say more!

              #7.1 - Mon May 4, 2009 12:37 PM EDT
              TL-770512

              Implants stretched her skin too taut?

                #7.2 - Mon May 4, 2009 12:58 PM EDT
                Reply
                Chines21

                I remember all the uproar about this. Never really understood it. I mean the part that makes it a nude boob was covered. What really got me is that the next week I was watching a Paulie Shore movie on TBS and in one scene there was Shore's nude butt. Funny how there was no uproar about that. Just to clarify it was also in the afternoon.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#8 - Mon May 4, 2009 12:59 PM EDT
                alcanta2

                I dont understand why this is such a big deal. This happend a long time ago, its over and done with. I agree why should CBS be sued for something that two pop icons did. The fact that makes the boob is covered doesnt necessarily mean its nude. There is too much of an uproar for something little that happened years ago.

                  Reply#9 - Mon May 4, 2009 3:17 PM EDT
                  Corpus Christi

                  I remember seeing it. I think CBS should get in trouble for a fleeting image of saggy boob.

                    Reply#10 - Mon May 4, 2009 3:19 PM EDT
                    DragonWoman

                    This is stupid... how many times are we going to waste more time.

                    Is this about her tit or the Government trying to "milk" more money?

                    • 2 votes
                    Reply#11 - Mon May 4, 2009 6:58 PM EDT
                    PastNikeVet-906575Deleted
                    Reply
                    eric fuller

                    Gee, where was the outrage with all those ads for "boner pills" that were shown. Which is worse a nipple that was shown for a nanosecond or ads with porn music to put a smile on Mr. Happy when Mr. Happy has a frown?

                    • 3 votes
                    Reply#12 - Mon May 4, 2009 7:21 PM EDT
                    PastNikeVet-906575Deleted
                    DragonWoman

                    I am sick to death of the Extenz adds in the middle of the night...

                    you know for enhancing that special part of a man... it will make you large

                    No I don't know,,, please explain it to me.... like I am a 2 year old.

                    and I don't need to be large!!!!

                    • 1 vote
                    #12.2 - Tue May 5, 2009 10:02 AM EDT
                    Reply
                    PastNikeVet-906575Deleted
                    lambnlions

                    It's a boob that popped out a bra, people? Supreme Court? America's becoming a joke daily? $500,000.00 for a boob popping out a bra? So because of this mishap, someones got to pay? I love the FCC, Lord knows I've written a few legitimate complaint to them myself; but this story sort of makes the FCC and the Supreme court, read like clowns. Sorry to say it, but it does.

                    Some snake in D.C., saw a way to get some money and look good for a minute, generating some publicity, never taking the time to weight the over all consequences of looking ridiculous.

                      Reply#14 - Tue May 5, 2009 10:06 PM EDT
                      Leave a Comment:
                      You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                      You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                      (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                      Newsvine Privacy Statement
                      As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                      FUN STUFF:
                      • Leaderboard |
                      • E-Mail Alerts |
                      • Top of the Vine |
                      • Newsvine Live |
                      • Newsvine Archives |
                      • The Greenhouse
                      COMPANY STUFF:
                      • Code of Honor |
                      • Company Info |
                      • Contact Us |
                      • Jobs |
                      • User Agreement |
                      • Privacy Policy |
                      • About our ads
                      LEGAL STUFF:
                      • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                      • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                      • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com