tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9465643.post3907727695185347351..comments2023-10-11T05:16:36.857-07:00Comments on CHILD OF TELEVISION: Janet Jackson Fine Thrown OutTony Figueroahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02277491059818528829noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9465643.post-27957803227742421862008-08-01T21:37:00.000-07:002008-08-01T21:37:00.000-07:00Tony, I have to warn you that this comment is a lo...Tony, I have to warn you that this comment is a long one, but this issue isn't going to go away.<BR/><BR/>As I read the Third Circuit's opinion the fine on Charlotte Ross's (beautiful) buttocks stands. The decision hangs on two points: first the fleeting mature of the exposure on live television; and second the fact that the even occurred before the FCC's decision on fleeting obscenities in the Bono situation (when he used the F-word at the Billboard Music Awards).<BR/><BR/>In the first part the court not found that CBS wasn't liable because it was incidental and fleeting (and CBS took the camera off of Jackson as quickly as possible) but also that Jackson and Timberlake were not network employees but rather independent contractors and therefore the network was not liable for their actions. In the second part the Bono decision set a new standard (one I consider to be wrong but that's beside the point), but which was not applied retroactively to events which occurred before the decision. The live, incidental nature of the event applies to the Jackson incident but not the Charlotte Ross situation, which was scripted and not live.<BR/><BR/>That said, I think that the Ross fine is wrong for a couple of reasons. A careful reading of what Justice Stevens said in "Pacifica" - rather than what the PTC <I>thinks</I> Stevens said - clearly shows that he wasn't intending a blanket prohibition. He clearly makes a point about an occassional use of "indecent" language in Shakespeare plays for example. The standard that he seemed to imply was that what was unacceptable was a "shock treatment" approach which the nudity in <I>NYPD Blue</I> never was except to people like Brent Bozell. The other aspect I think is important is that there has been ample precedent both in the ten years of the show but in the 25 years before <I>NYPD Blue</I> began for nudity on broadcast TV not to be fined regardless of the hour at which it was shown. Whether it was Valerie Perrine's ass in 1973's <I>Steambath</I> on PBS, or Meredith Baxter's breast in the movie <I>My Breast</I> in 1994 there is ample precedent. And remember, he only reason that the FCC was able to fine <I>NYPD Blue</I> at all was because the network followed standard practice and aired the episode at 9 p.m. in the Central and Mountain time zones.Brent McKeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883838112004433045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9465643.post-10643844573830660782008-08-01T12:14:00.000-07:002008-08-01T12:14:00.000-07:00Yeah, don't even get me started on this noise. I ...Yeah, don't even get me started on this noise. I want one of these God-fearing people to explain to me why we should be so ashamed of what God gave us? And exactly WHY it's so shocking, other than "Because it is." I know: Garden of Eden, blah blah blah.... But it's a non-argument, frankly, unless you're a devout Muslim or Hassid, in which case you're in the vast minority in the US. But maybe if one of these "incidents" starts a discussion about our bodies the rest of us can all put our minds elsewhere. Maybe even to things that God would have us do: help the poor, feed the hungry, end war.... That was why Christ was sent, no?<BR/><BR/>Jus' Sayin'....<BR/><BR/>I'm with you: let's move on to more important things. Like prosecuting the Executive Branch for breaking the law.RTinLAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05456029760101211724noreply@blogger.com