Thread: CBS Is Fined $550,000

^i think that is SUCH a crock O' shit.

how can CBS know what JJ wsa gonna do?

this is just a case of crybaby people of today's age. People need to whine/protest something. Because rookie Kellen Winslow of the NFL last year was pissed off about his performance and said "I'm a soldier, i'll be back....", he got TORN apart by people.

what is it with people nowadays? every other word out of someone's mouth offends someone.

hey, people almost saw her nipple, except it was actually covered with some sort of star like jewelery thing.

almost seeing that nipple was very damaging to the youth of America that were exposed to this incident, very tragic. even though the camera was off of her within 2-3 seconds.

I am kidding if you do not know me.

FCC is so full of shit, it ain't even funny.

As conservative as you all know I am it will probably surprise you to know I'm very sensitive toward freedom of speech issues. In this case I'm a little bit split. I think the government may have over stepped it's bounds in order to send a message. What I mean by that is, they were trying to send a message to all the television, radio, newspaper organizations that this sort of conduct is unacceptable. I'm OK with that, I don't think we can have TOTAL freedom of speech, there have to be limits somewhere. (You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.) Where I think they went overboard is by fining the wrong people. Yes, CBS booked the act so ultimately they have to take responsibility, but I think Janet Jackson should have been the target of the government fine. Yes, I understand there's the whole arguement about it being an accident. BULLSHIT! I don't buy that for a second. So, hopefully I've been vague enough that you have no idea what I'm talking about, much less where I stand on the issue.

I think they should have dropped it and released a statement saying there is no way to prove if it were truly an acccident or planned, or some shit like that.

It was the freakin super bowl. I would be more worried, which I am not, about my kids playing football, than seeing a boob.

blame janet jackson for exposing her nipple? then she could turn around and blame the manufacturer of her clothes. then they could blame .....

everybody is always passing the buck never wanting to accept responsiblity.

I would really like to take responsibility for taking Janet's top off, but the Judge said I cannot talk about that type of behavior anymore.

Restraining orders = Another way to say I love you.

I wish her entire top would have "malfunctioned".

how about a faulty zipper?

Originally Posted by bulletproof1

how about a faulty zipper?

LOL, that would have resulted in a $1 million fine.

and 100 million downloads

Originally Posted by Robert DiMaggio

almost seeing that nipple was very damaging to the youth of America that were exposed to this incident, very tragic. even though the camera was off of her within 2-3 seconds.

It was certainly damaging to me, that was a nasty ass shaped tittie. They should have fined her for pulling that nasty thing out.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

It was certainly damaging to me, that was a nasty ass shaped tittie. They should have fined her for pulling that nasty thing out.

It's interesting how this country prides itself on its sexual liberation but freaks out when a nipple is shown on network TV. If there was a simulated act of violence nobody would be give a shit. Although it was inappropriate it's hardly going to corrupt kids for life. I expect half of those kids surf the Web for porn regularly anyway LOL.

Guys we are talking CBS here ... the liberal Democrat ran anti-Bush network. I am surprised they didn't get a real fine.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Guys we are talking CBS here ... the liberal Democrat ran anti-Bush network. I am surprised they didn't get a real fine.

You're kiddin, right? Cause, I thought CBS was the official "Old Fart" network.

It's a freakin' nipple... I mean really who cares???!!!

Well for those of us who really like seeing nipples, I care

Originally Posted by BritChick

It's a freakin' nipple... I mean really who cares???!!!

Annoying old fucks who can't get it up anymore, and so feel the rest of us should be deprived as well. (i.e. FCC)

Come on guys, it was obviously planned.
How many outfits do you have where you could grab the garment and rip
off a piece of it.

Since most people here are pretty strong you could probably rip something off of one of your outfits, but you would have to work at it. Do you honestly think you would get a clean tear over the designated area ? ? ? Come on ! ! !
Lets be intellectually honest !
He just reached over, grabs and Voila . . . we have exposure of only that certain area. It didn't even make her body turn towards him. It was probably like those checks we get with our credit cards and it had perforated lines on it so it would tear in the right spot.

No doubt it was planned.

Maybe not known ahead of time by the regular cast or TV operators, but definitely planned. MTV ran the entertainment. I would hardly call this out of line with their normal broadcasts.

If our societal values today say this is not acceptable for prime time TV, and how can you get any more prime than the Super Bowl, then CBS can not try to change that.
Fine em for breaking the law in place.

Old liberal farts !

Originally Posted by redspy

It's interesting how this country prides itself on its sexual liberation

What country are YOU living it? You're sure as hell not talking about the United States.

It's a fucking mammary most children grow up sucking the fucking thing mouth all over it slobbering and suckking, slurp slurp, I think it shows the perpetual immaturity of our species when seeing a breast on T.V. sends grown ass adults into a frenzy of "OOOOOOH, I just saw a booby and I'm tellin'." These fucking prude ass fuckers need to be lined up and dick slapped and then walk around with a cock shaped bruise on their cheek for a week.

Originally Posted by milliman

Come on guys, it was obviously planned.
How many outfits do you have where you could grab the garment and rip
off a piece of it.

Since most people here are pretty strong you could probably rip something off of one of your outfits, but you would have to work at it. Do you honestly think you would get a clean tear over the designated area ? ? ? Come on ! ! !
Lets be intellectually honest !
He just reached over, grabs and Voila . . . we have exposure of only that certain area. It didn't even make her body turn towards him. It was probably like those checks we get with our credit cards and it had perforated lines on it so it would tear in the right spot.

No doubt it was planned.

Maybe not known ahead of time by the regular cast or TV operators, but definitely planned. MTV ran the entertainment. I would hardly call this out of line with their normal broadcasts.

If our societal values today say this is not acceptable for prime time TV, and how can you get any more prime than the Super Bowl, then CBS can not try to change that.
Fine em for breaking the law in place.

Of course it was planned, everyone knows that, but can you prove it? See we have this damn thing in our laws that states you must be able prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember the OJ case? Does anyone in their right mind really think he is innocent, of course not, but thanks to the "dream team" our wonderful court appointed prosecution could not prove it.

So, let's see someone actually prove that it was planned and not an accidental "wardrobe malfunction". If they can, then fine them.

If Bush were not in office I wonder if Clear Channel would have been fined the $1.5 million, or whatever it was, and this fine on CBS? I highly doubt it.

oh I forgot that crap about proving beyond a reasonable doubt, does not apply to the federal government, they can do whatever they want.

the FCC cares about saying fuck, but any amount of violence on t.v. is fine, our children can watch all of the violence, but they cannot hear a "bad word" or god forbid see any part of the human body naked!!!

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" level of evidence only applies in criminal cases.
The "more likely than not" level of evidence applies in civil cases. (non criminal).
The criminal level is like 95% likely that he did it, where as civil level is only like 51%.

That is why OJ walked on murder, but was convicted in civil court.
He did not go to jail, but he owes the goldman family millions.
Collecting it is a different story. They took everything he had, but they could
not take his pension. That is why he can still live fine today.