Court tosses FCC 'wardrobe malfunction' fine

This is a good place to drop general and weird news, entertainment, and general show prep material that might be interesting to air talent or producers. Hot dog threads ALWAYS welcome.

Moderators: The People's DJ, David Paleg

Post Reply
User avatar
The-Hammer
Member
Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 11:02 pm

Court tosses FCC 'wardrobe malfunction' fine

Post by The-Hammer »

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."
Full Story
Anthony DiNozzo: "I'm a white male between the ages of 18 and 49 with a loud mouth and a gun. I am the American Dream."

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it" - Ambrose's Corollary to Clarke's Third Law.
Bob Campbell
Member
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:13 pm
Location: Blue Heaven

Re: Court tosses FCC 'wardrobe malfunction' fine

Post by Bob Campbell »

And commons sense wins one...til the appeal at least.
AmpedNow
Member
Member
Posts: 2415
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2002 4:46 am
Location: none

Re: Court tosses FCC 'wardrobe malfunction' fine

Post by AmpedNow »

The court said 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."
I will concede that it was the wrong venue for that kind of programming, but it was far from "shock treatment"... I mean, geez. It was a half-second of a star-covered boob, not a Max Hardcore scene.
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.
I still say this was all because it was an election year... Why would they say one thing the year before, only to do a 180 a few months later, without warning?

And no, the F word does not "inherently have a sexual connotation" in any context. But, that's a different topic.

This case is one thing. But the SC case this fall is the big one to watch.
Post Reply