Friday, November 21, 2008

Nipplegate Update

AFP: Janet Jackson's 'Nipplegate' case could reach US high court: "WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US government has asked the Supreme Court to reimpose a half-million-dollar fine slapped on CBS television for a 2004 broadcast of live images of pop star Janet Jackson's breast, court documents obtained by AFP show.

It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it will consider the request.

Prosecutors are asking the high court justices to weigh in on a case that raised eyebrows and stirred passions in the United States, where nudity on non-pay television is a no-no in advertising, while rare and limited to late-night hours in television series."


Cap'n Bob said...

The picture I saw showed a star-shaped device over the nip. Another stupd tempest in a teacup.

Word Verification: hasilsi. As in, "Hey, Juan, is this a hasil?"

Brent McKee said...

Well strictly speaking it was a star shaped device around the nipple, but the whole thing should have been a tempest in the prvoerbial teapot. Indeed here in Canada no one really noticed, and there were more complaints to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council about sexist copy in an ad on the game than there was about the nipple (and if there had been complaints they would have been rejected; the Canadian rules allow nudity at any time of the day so long as the context is "non-sexual" - nudity by itself is not considered sexual).

Anonymous said...

So, Brent, you think it wasn't sexual when Justin ripped off Janet's top? Not that I think nipples should be banned from TV; that's ridiculous.

Brent McKee said...

At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, define sexual. By the Canadian rules, as defined by the Broadcast Standards Council it wasn't sexual if for no other reason than the fact that it wasn't visible long enough for it to become sexual. Fondling would probably have made it sexual but at no time, as far as I or anyone else could see, did Timberlake's hand touch her breast let alone her nipple. The actions up to that point are arguable but the fact that the Broadcast Standards Council took no action on the matter indicates that they didn't consider it sexual.