NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://channels.aimtoday.com/tv/story.jsp?maxphotos=3&phototerm=Janet+Jackson&floc=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040922%2F1313063169.htm&photoid=20040201NYET112)

Well the fact there was a fine isn't so much a surprise, however I thought I could get a nice little censorship debate started over this.


I am thoroughly opposed to censorship. I honestly believe that people should just take personal responsibility (which, BTW, is actually a conservative value) for their sensitivities, and stop being so oversensitive. If you dont like what's on TV then DONT FRICKIN WATCH IT!

While I do believe that children should grow up w/o being exposed to anymore Janet Jackson-esque incidents, I feel it is the parents' responsibility to take care of this. And honestly, the FCC should just be dismantled; I DONT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING ME WHAT TO WATCH AND WHAT NOT TO.

dumbest decision ever.

How can you say that 20 TV stations decided what will be aired during the show. They talked it together and decided that Janet should flash?

Another thing: the maximum fine for this? I could understand a token fine of, say, 1000$ to tell them they broke the rules but 27,500$ each? At this rate, it would have been cheaper to show a porno movie. It's already the maximum fine you'll get...

It's quite funny seeing the hang-ups American society has about this kind of thing on tv... we have adverts for shower gel that show more flesh than Janet did!

I'm not surprised by the fine either, even though the stations didn't really do anything wrong. They show it fairly live and everyone knows it. If you don't know that some very weird people show up at big, live event, such as... say... the Super Bowl, then you're probably as dangerous as they are. It's pretty obvious that's the risk you take with live TV.

As far as censorship goes, I think therre should be some, but just some basic stuff (like no sex on basic cable during prime-time, no recent classified documents on the news, etc.). Beyond that's not really necessary.

Source (http://channels.aimtoday.com/tv/story.jsp?maxphotos=3&phototerm=Janet+Jackson&floc=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20040922%2F1313063169.htm&photoid=20040201NYET112)

Well the fact there was a fine isn't so much a surprise, however I thought I could get a nice little censorship debate started over this.


I am thoroughly opposed to censorship. I honestly believe that people should just take personal responsibility (which, BTW, is actually a conservative value) for their sensitivities, and stop being so oversensitive. If you dont like what's on TV then DONT FRICKIN WATCH IT!

While I do believe that children should grow up w/o being exposed to anymore Janet Jackson-esque incidents, I feel it is the parents' responsibility to take care of this. And honestly, the FCC should just be dismantled; I DONT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING ME WHAT TO WATCH AND WHAT NOT TO.

No f'n kidding. Parents knew that the Super Bowl halftime show was going to feature questionable stuff, like a lingerie bowl. So they knew ahead of time there was going to be adult stuff on the halftime show. At that point, they should've turned the station or kicked the kids out of the room.

Besides, it's not like a kid has never seen a nipple before. We all have them.

Take the government out of censorship and leave it up to the parents. It's the parent's job to pay attention to what the hell their kids are watching. NOT the government's.

Well, I'm all against censorship. Concidering youth in Holland is much better informed about sex than in the US and the UK, they use condoms more than in the UK and US, and there are less unwanted teen-pregnancies.

Apart from this, I find it rather ironic that many news companies actually aired it frame by frame, showing a hell of a lot more than was visible in the 'live' version. Plain hypocrisy if you ask me.

Mr U
The Artist Formerly Known As HomoUniversalis

Ah, I understand now: female nipples on TV are bad things while violent acts on TV are good things.

Well, no one was expecting Janet Jackson's Breast. No one ever does.

parents WERE being responsible by allowing their children to watch the superbowl

the network was irresponsible for having MTV produce the half time show which resulted in the "costume malfunction"

the network should be fined big time so they wont be so stupid next time.

a parent should be able to rely on the networks to not show their children private body parts during big sporting events. or, if they are going to do so, to give parents a "heads up" so they can avoid that show if they feel that it would be inappropriate for their children.

the various TV stations were not responsible for the problem and its wrong to fine them. they had no way of knowing that janet jacksons breast would be shown to the world.

Someone explain to me why the female nipple is evil: I appear to have missed the memo on that completely.

the various TV stations were not responsible for the problem and its wrong to fine them. they had no way of knowing that janet jacksons breast would be shown to the world.

Agreed. If you start fining the various TV stations, you should have to fine every TV station that replayed the incident in the news, every TV station that wasn't a CBS affiliate who retransmitted the super bowl.

What's next? A civil lawsuit against WVNY because they showed the super bowl and that my little virgin eyes had to see boobies?
(Note: WVNY exist, but I'm not sure they showed the super bowl. Anyway, it is used as an example)

BWO you know better than that. It's not about evil, it's about the concept of decency.

Sure, not all of us mind female nipples. Not even all of us mind Janet Jackson's. And just about anyone who's human has seen at least one nipple. But that doesn't mean everyone is OK with unexpectedly seeing them, or their children. I mean would it be OK to walk into a daycare center and unzip the old boobs for all to see? Hell no! Similarly, most kids who watch sporting events look for... well, sports. Not boobs.

And, mostly, its the expectation. Currently we dont expect to see tits on that kind of TV in the US. If we did it'd be a different story, but as things stand now a lot of america relies on an amount of censorship to prevent having to be responsible and alert to everything on TV for unwanted nipple showings.

And, mostly, its the expectation. Currently we dont expect to see tits on that kind of TV in the US. If we did it'd be a different story, but as things stand now a lot of america relies on an amount of censorship to prevent having to be responsible and alert to everything on TV for unwanted nipple showings.

Would representations of the female nipple - for example the Venus de Milo - also provoke the same response?

I don't know when the last time in the US that an unexpected violent altercation at a sporting event was aired on TV, but did it provoke the same reaction of fining the companies that broadcast it?

1) no one saw the bvare nipple, NO ONE, why? IT DIDNT EXIST> she had a funny little covering on it

2) why the hell are they suing the people who showed the SUPERBOWL instead of every and their mom who decided to givea play by play of her flashing everyone with it zooemd in and circled

3) and whoever is suing should be thrown in the stocks, whiny old people, mothers against indecency and doing our jobs as mothers (MAI&DOJAM), its not like it was a big sex orgy on tv or people getting naked, it was a more less accidental flash of breast flesh, no nipple, not major breast, hell there is MORE breasts shown on every show with a bikini than janet showed

Would representations of the female nipple - for example the Venus de Milo - also provoke the same response?


You tell me. But it's different with her, since it's expected. As for other representations other than art, well yes they do tend to provoke similar responses from people when shown in inappropriate places.


I don't know when the last time in the US that an unexpected violent altercation at a sporting event was aired on TV, but did it provoke the same reaction of fining the companies that broadcast it?

Of course not. But American culture's love of violence overcomes any hangups about nipples.

But American culture's love of violence overcomes any hangups about nipples.


Which just raises the question of the screening of violent acts which include the display of the nipple of a member of the female gender...

1) no one saw the bvare nipple, NO ONE, why? IT DIDNT EXIST> she had a funny little covering on it

2) why the hell are they suing the people who showed the SUPERBOWL instead of every and their mom who decided to givea play by play of her flashing everyone with it zooemd in and circled

3) and whoever is suing should be thrown in the stocks, whiny old people, mothers against indecency and doing our jobs as mothers (MAI&DOJAM), its not like it was a big sex orgy on tv or people getting naked, it was a more less accidental flash of breast flesh, no nipple, not major breast, hell there is MORE breasts shown on every show with a bikini than janet showed

oohhh if only i wasnt sure that #1 is wrong. *blushes* she was wearing a piece of jewelry that exposed the nipple and covered the areola with a metal sun burst.

im thinking that the "news" is exempt from those kinds of fcc rules. but certainly if no one had made a fuss, fewer children would have been traumatized. (yeah there is nothing quite so scary as a middle aged breast, trust me, i have 2 of them)

i do sometimes wonder why those ultra conservatives arent trying to get HBO cleaned up. it certainly is much racier than regular TV. and many young parents let their children watch it!! (its all about making decisions for other people not for your own family, eh?)

Americans are so sexually repressive. It's embarrasing, really. I can't see how they can be so anti-sexual.

oohhh if only i wasnt sure that #1 is wrong. *blushes* she was wearing a piece of jewelry that exposed the nipple and covered the areola with a metal sun burst.

im thinking that the "news" is exempt from those kinds of fcc rules. but certainly if no one had made a fuss, fewer children would have been traumatized. (yeah there is nothing quite so scary as a middle aged breast, trust me, i have 2 of them)

i do sometimes wonder why those ultra conservatives arent trying to get HBO cleaned up. it certainly is much racier than regular TV. and many young parents let their children watch it!! (its all about making decisions for other people not for your own family, eh?)
who was bithcing about lil kim's show at the mtv music awards a couple years back? no damn one, and she had a whole side of her exposed with a glitter sticker over her nipple. everyone is just getting bitcher year by year

Americans are so sexually repressive.

Compared to whom?
And why do you draw this correlation between a naked breast and sex?

Compared to whom?
And why do you draw this correlation between a naked breast and sex?
compared to um... every country? maybe not the vatican :rolleyes:

Would representations of the female nipple - for example the Venus de Milo - also provoke the same response?

well, ashcroft did decide that justice was indecent and had her covered up

well, ashcroft did decide that justice was indecent and had her covered up

Hey, in the UK the standard statue of Justice is a woman wearing a blindfold and covered in birdshit. I'm still not entirely sure what message this is meant to send out.

Americans are so sexually repressive. It's embarrasing, really. I can't see how they can be so anti-sexual.
Wrong. American censorship is completely illgocial. Watch prime time tv, and you'll see how the hit shows have a lot of sexuality. You can show what basically is thinly veiled porn on public tv, just as long as the genitals and the nipples aren't shown.

Non-sexual nudity is censored blatantly, when blatant sex that avoids showing the breasts is considered okay.

I don't see the logic there. At all.

I think the problem wasn't the nipple-it was that it wasn't expected.

After all, I don't recall the episode of Barney when Carmen Electra ran in and did a strip show.

Compared to whom?
And why do you draw this correlation between a naked breast and sex?

I don't, but Americans do.

Wrong. American censorship is completely illgocial. Watch prime time tv, and you'll see how the hit shows have a lot of sexuality. You can show what basically is thinly veiled porn on public tv, just as long as the genitals and the nipples aren't shown.

You must be watching a different prime time TV then I do. Then again, I don't watch TV much other than sci-fi and anime, so I really don't know that much about most shows.

America is sexually repressive? Puh-lease. Take a look at teenage pregnancy numbers and tell me that.

I think the problem wasn't the nipple-it was that it wasn't expected.

Nah, that doesn't get to the nub of it either - many unexpected things happen on live TV, but they don't fine the companies for them.

Nah, that doesn't get to the nub of it either - many unexpected things happen on live TV, but they don't fine the companies for them.

you hit it before.

boobies bad, bombs falling on cities good (as long as we don't put human faces to all those civilians...)

there isn't much more thought to it beyond that. i assume there is some biblical connection somewhere in all of it.

It's quite funny seeing the hang-ups American society has about this kind of thing on tv... we have adverts for shower gel that show more flesh than Janet did!
when i was in italy i saw a commercial with a topless lady applying deodorant...

usually they don't show that here.

and it is stupid that people are so obsessed with how the human body shouldn't be on television especially when they go about popularizing images of celebrities who are wearing next to nothing anyways.

well, ashcroft did decide that justice was indecent and had her covered up
leave it to the americans, not just any american the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, to make sure century+ old art is covered up just in case some kid might see it and realise they live in the real world

You must be watching a different prime time TV then I do. Then again, I don't watch TV much other than sci-fi and anime, so I really don't know that much about most shows.
watch basic cable: fox, abc, cbs, nbc. its dripping with off screen sex with just heads visible, and thats not even to mention inuendos

America is sexually repressive? Puh-lease. Take a look at teenage pregnancy numbers and tell me that.
thats because of the push to replace sex ed with "abstinence ed", was proved in a study in 1989, yet they KEEP going, its like the retarded energizer bunny. keeps going and going and going, when its already marching against a wall

i do sometimes wonder why those ultra conservatives arent trying to get HBO cleaned up. it certainly is much racier than regular TV. and many young parents let their children watch it!! (its all about making decisions for other people not for your own family, eh?)

The difference is that HBO is a pay channel. You have to choose to subscribe to HBO, meaning if you are offended with what you see, you can just cancel your subscription and not see it again.

America is sexually repressive? Puh-lease. Take a look at teenage pregnancy numbers and tell me that.

Which are only that high because they don't have the education to use condoms. Other countries have a lot of teenagers having sex, but they use condoms.

parents WERE being responsible by allowing their children to watch the superbowl

the network was irresponsible for having MTV produce the half time show which resulted in the "costume malfunction"

the network should be fined big time so they wont be so stupid next time.

a parent should be able to rely on the networks to not show their children private body parts during big sporting events. or, if they are going to do so, to give parents a "heads up" so they can avoid that show if they feel that it would be inappropriate for their children.

the various TV stations were not responsible for the problem and its wrong to fine them. they had no way of knowing that janet jacksons breast would be shown to the world.

Parents knew there was going to be a lingerie bowl on the halftime show. They knew months beforehand.

If they let their kids watch that, then they have no need to sit and bitch about a nipple.

you hit it before.

boobies bad, bombs falling on cities good (as long as we don't put human faces to all those civilians...)

there isn't much more thought to it beyond that. i assume there is some biblical connection somewhere in all of it.

And don't forget showing the dead bodies of Saddam's sons last year, broadcasted on every frickin' channel and news media. Oh, and murdered bodies shown on Cops most every week. That's ok to show on tv, but God help us all, if there is one nipple shown, it's the end of the world! :rolleyes:

It's weird. For one day the entire nation stopped to look at a nipple.

To be honest, I think the US is channeling its sexual frustration into bombing countries.

boobies bad, bombs falling on cities good (as long as we don't put human faces to all those civilians...)

"It looks like the Fourth of July out there" - CNN reporter Bernard Shaw broadcasting live from Baghdad on the first night of Operation Desert Storm.

It's weird. For one day the entire nation stopped to look at a nipple.

To be honest, I think the US is channeling its sexual frustration into bombing countries.
It isn't sexual frustration... its madness. To be truthful I can't understand it. What's sexual about it? I mean did somebody really tape it and masturbate to it or something? It's not like she was stripping. At the same time we look at our tv and everything involves sex. Turn on the radio... sex.

The whole thing just confuses me.

The whole thing just confuses me.


Ah, finally some evidence of just how traumatic the exposure to one (1) female nipple can be. :P

Let me find that pic, post it, and we'll see how the Mods react. How 'bout that?

Let me find that pic, post it, and we'll see how the Mods react. How 'bout that?
I tried finding it once to do this very same thing. 'Cept I couldn't find it. Meh.

Ah, finally some evidence of just how traumatic the exposure to one (1) female nipple can be. :P
I wonder what the general reaction from the Amish comunity would be if they saw it. o.o

I wonder what the general reaction from the Amish comunity would be if they saw it. o.o

I would expect it to be "What on Earth are we doing sitting around here watching TV for when there is work to be done on the farm?"

Someone explain to me why the female nipple is evil: I appear to have missed the memo on that completely.

Did you know it is legal for a woman to walk around topless in the province of Ontario (that's in Canada). Not that many do it, but still...

America is sexually repressive? Puh-lease. Take a look at teenage pregnancy numbers and tell me that.

That kind of proves that America IS repressed.... in countries where sex is more openly talked about and sex education covers more than just absitence and horrible pictures of STDs, less teenagers get pregnant...because they know how to use contraceptives. Teens have sex in every country...it's just in those countries that refuse to admit it that it becomes a problem (of unwanted pregnancies or the spread of STDs). Well...ok....these things are problems elsewhere too, but generally education is a great contraceptive:) I'll remember to bring my books to bed next time to avoid getting pregnant:)

I would expect it to be "What on Earth are we doing sitting around here watching TV for when there is work to be done on the farm?"
xD That's beyond the point. What if someone distributed fliers and put them on the doors of every barn and hoose with a pic of her nipple?

Parents knew there was going to be a lingerie bowl on the halftime show. They knew months beforehand.

If they let their kids watch that, then they have no need to sit and bitch about a nipple.

To be fair, the lingerie bowl was a pay-per-view event you could buy. It was not on CBS.