Update: Court Says That CBS Was Wrongly Fined for Janet Jackson's "Nipplegate" - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

JamesG · 02-23-2010, 06:59 PM

Jackson's Super Bowl mishap reconsidered

Federal appeals court to re-examine FCC fine against CBS
By Associated Press
Feb 23, 2010

PHILADELPHIA -- A federal appeals court will re-examine the FCC fine it threw out against CBS over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on Tuesday will consider whether the FCC's $550,000 fine for the broadcaster over the breast-baring performance is permissible.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year directed the lower court to consider reinstating the fine, following a ruling in another case that said the FCC could threaten fines even for fleeting profanity.

The lower court threw out the fine in 2008, saying the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the fine for the half-second of nudity.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...1be27df507bb0b

catlover79 · 02-23-2010, 09:32 PM

*SIGH* Don't they have anything better to do these days?

HuntingtonM15 · 02-23-2010, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catlover79

*SIGH* Don't they have anything better to do these days?

Yeah, really. What a friggen waste of time.

JamesG · 02-23-2010, 10:52 PM

Yeah, it seems like a waste...

but since it is going on I hope they overrule the FCC here.

catlover79 · 02-24-2010, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuntingtonM15

Yeah, really. What a friggen waste of time.

Every time you think this story is over, it just won't go away. It's been over 6 years, people - let sleeping dogs lie!

Schmoopie · 02-24-2010, 02:46 AM

That whole thing looked rigged to me; like it wasn't exactly an accident. It gets my vote for the most overrated storyline (and over-ly mediated) storyline of all time!

70s show watcher · 02-24-2010, 06:11 AM

[QUOTE=HuntingtonM15]Yeah, really. What a friggen waste of time.[/QUOTEand taxpayers money

70s show watcher · 02-24-2010, 06:13 AM

sorry i messed up your post

sunshinefizzy · 02-24-2010, 10:17 AM

OMG, just let it go already!!!

catlover79 · 02-24-2010, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunshinefizzy

OMG, just let it go already!!!

My sentiments exactly!!

Zebra 3 · 02-24-2010, 06:21 PM

Put Janet Jackson under oath, and if that doesn't work, torture her until she confesses her sins.

Dr. Thong · 02-24-2010, 07:50 PM

Get over it. It's a footnote in history.

ABlairican Pie · 02-25-2010, 02:15 AM

HURRAY FOR BOOBIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JamesG · 12-29-2010, 05:08 AM

FCC, CBS Continue To Battle Over Janet Jackson Reveal

Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing its earlier decision on FCC's fine of CBS
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable
12/27/2010

The FCC, backed by the Justice Department, says that broadcasters give up full First Amendment status when they get a government license, and so should be subject to government regulation of swearing and nudity when kids could be watching.

That was the gist of the FCC's supplemental brief to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing its earlier decision that the FCC's $550,000 fine of CBS for Janet Jackson's partially exposed breast on the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show broadcast was arbitrary and capricious.

The Third Circuit had sought input on whether, if CBS was found to have knowledge of the "reveal," the FCC should be applying the criminal or civil recklessness standard.

The FCC argues it should be the latter, which would mean CBS could be culpable even if it was not aware of what Jackson and Justin Timberlake were going to do, so long as it should have been aware.

The criminal recklessness standard applies only if CBS had been aware of the risk and chose to disregard it.

CBS argued that the First Amendment implications of content regulations on speech requires a heightened scrutiny comparable to the criminal liability standard, but the FCC said no.

"Although broadcasters engage in speech, they are not like other speakers. A broadcast licensee is ‘granted the free and exclusive use of a limited and valuable part of the public domain,' in exchange for which it agrees to be ‘burdened by enforceable public obligations,' including the obligation not to broadcast indecent material," the commission said, quoting language from previous court decisions.

As a fallback, the FCC said that if the court did not agree with its interpretation, it should remand the decision back to the commission. It has already asked the court to do so, saying it wanted to do more investigating to establish that CBS's violation was willful.

"CBS neither knew of nor approved the broadcast involving the material at issue. Consequently, the Court should vacate the forfeiture," CBS said in its filing last week. But it argued that the FCC's fine must be thrown out whether or not the standard is criminal or civil recklessness.

CBS wants the court to vacate the fine, but if it does not, it says the court should consider the Constitutional questions. "The Court should thus address the First Amendment issues raised by the forfeiture, particularly in light of the FCC's zeal to prolong its investigation on remand," said CBS.

The Supreme Court is expected to eventually have to weigh in on the FCC's indecency enforcement regime, given its decision to overturn a lower court's ruling, in the Fox case, that the FCC's fleeting profanity enforcement was arbitrary and capricious.

The court then remanded the Third Circuit's similar finding against the FCC's indecency fine of CBS for fleeting nudity.

It is that court's review that occasioned the request for more info on the standard of recklessness.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...son_Reveal.php

MrCleveland · 12-29-2010, 08:23 AM

What the hell are they going to do next?

Have Donald Duck wear pants?
Call "The Dick van Dyke Show" "The Bleep van Bleep Show"?
Show ALL the performers from the waist-up?
Make Tom and Jerry be friends, like have alternate endings to their older cartoons?
Show the Test Pattern every time there's a fight on Jerry Springer?
When someone farts on TV, it's going to be a Steve Wright Joke?

02-23-2010, 06:59 PM	#1
JamesG Freakshow Moderator Forum Icon Join Date: Feb 01, 2008 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 57,032	Update: Court Says That CBS Was Wrongly Fined for Janet Jackson's "Nipplegate" Jackson's Super Bowl mishap reconsidered *Federal appeals court to re-examine FCC fine against CBS* By Associated Press Feb 23, 2010 PHILADELPHIA -- A federal appeals court will re-examine the FCC fine it threw out against CBS over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on Tuesday will consider whether the FCC's $550,000 fine for the broadcaster over the breast-baring performance is permissible. The U.S. Supreme Court last year directed the lower court to consider reinstating the fine, following a ruling in another case that said the FCC could threaten fines even for fleeting profanity. The lower court threw out the fine in 2008, saying the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the fine for the half-second of nudity. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...1be27df507bb0b Attached Images
	Last edited by JamesG; 11-02-2011 at 03:13 PM.

02-23-2010, 09:32 PM	#2
catlover79 God Bless Val Forum Addict Join Date: May 29, 2006 Location: Bewitched in Ohio Posts: 70,376	SIGH Don't they have anything better to do these days?
	__________________ "Jesus loves you and He approves this message." "I'm alive. I'm feeling good. I'm trying to live every moment as much as I can." - Valerie Harper, March 2013

02-24-2010, 02:46 AM	#6
Schmoopie Keep Calm and Love Snoopy Forum Star Join Date: Jul 13, 2008 Location: Lynnwood, Washington Posts: 15,697	That whole thing looked rigged to me; like it wasn't exactly an accident. It gets my vote for the most overrated storyline (and over-ly mediated) storyline of all time!
	__________________ In memory of my wonderful husband. I love and miss you more than words can say, but I will always and forever keep you in my heart. September 23, 1961-January 14, 2019

02-24-2010, 06:21 PM	#11
Zebra 3 Striped Tomato Forum Veteran Join Date: Jun 26, 2002 Location: Bay City Posts: 5,807	Put Janet Jackson under oath, and if that doesn't work, torture her until she confesses her sins.
	__________________ Sitcoms Online STARSKY & HUTCH Message Board

02-24-2010, 07:50 PM	#12
Dr. Thong a/k/a "ACK!" Forum Veteran Join Date: Jul 10, 2001 Location: New Hampshire, USA Posts: 5,546	Get over it. It's a footnote in history.
	__________________ "Sunday has been cancelled due to lack of interest. That is all."

02-23-2010, 10:52 PM	#4
JamesG Freakshow Moderator Forum Icon Join Date: Feb 01, 2008 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 57,032	Yeah, it seems like a waste... but since it is going on I hope they overrule the FCC here.

02-24-2010, 06:11 AM	#7
70s show watcher Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: May 20, 2008 Location: between point place and studio 8 h Posts: 4,548	[QUOTE=HuntingtonM15]Yeah, really. What a friggen waste of time.[/QUOTEand taxpayers money

02-24-2010, 06:13 AM	#8
70s show watcher Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: May 20, 2008 Location: between point place and studio 8 h Posts: 4,548	sorry i messed up your post

02-24-2010, 10:17 AM	#9
sunshinefizzy Member Senior Member Join Date: Sep 27, 2006 Location: Craptown Posts: 2,054	OMG, just let it go already!!!

02-25-2010, 02:15 AM	#13
ABlairican Pie Member Forum Superstar Join Date: Dec 12, 2001 Location: Living where cats reign more Supreme than a pizza. Posts: 31,620	Note to the U.S. Supreme Court HURRAY FOR BOOBIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Attached Images
	__________________ Release the kitties. --Nathan Explosion

12-29-2010, 05:08 AM	#14
JamesG Freakshow Moderator Forum Icon Join Date: Feb 01, 2008 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 57,032	FCC, CBS Continue To Battle Over Janet Jackson Reveal *Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing its earlier decision on FCC's fine of CBS* By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable 12/27/2010 The FCC, backed by the Justice Department, says that broadcasters give up full First Amendment status when they get a government license, and so should be subject to government regulation of swearing and nudity when kids could be watching. That was the gist of the FCC's supplemental brief to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing its earlier decision that the FCC's $550,000 fine of CBS for Janet Jackson's partially exposed breast on the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show broadcast was arbitrary and capricious. The Third Circuit had sought input on whether, if CBS was found to have knowledge of the "reveal," the FCC should be applying the criminal or civil recklessness standard. The FCC argues it should be the latter, which would mean CBS could be culpable even if it was not aware of what Jackson and Justin Timberlake were going to do, so long as it should have been aware. The criminal recklessness standard applies only if CBS had been aware of the risk and chose to disregard it. CBS argued that the First Amendment implications of content regulations on speech requires a heightened scrutiny comparable to the criminal liability standard, but the FCC said no. "Although broadcasters engage in speech, they are not like other speakers. A broadcast licensee is ‘granted the free and exclusive use of a limited and valuable part of the public domain,' in exchange for which it agrees to be ‘burdened by enforceable public obligations,' including the obligation not to broadcast indecent material," the commission said, quoting language from previous court decisions. As a fallback, the FCC said that if the court did not agree with its interpretation, it should remand the decision back to the commission. It has already asked the court to do so, saying it wanted to do more investigating to establish that CBS's violation was willful. "CBS neither knew of nor approved the broadcast involving the material at issue. Consequently, the Court should vacate the forfeiture," CBS said in its filing last week. But it argued that the FCC's fine must be thrown out whether or not the standard is criminal or civil recklessness. CBS wants the court to vacate the fine, but if it does not, it says the court should consider the Constitutional questions. "The Court should thus address the First Amendment issues raised by the forfeiture, particularly in light of the FCC's zeal to prolong its investigation on remand," said CBS. The Supreme Court is expected to eventually have to weigh in on the FCC's indecency enforcement regime, given its decision to overturn a lower court's ruling, in the Fox case, that the FCC's fleeting profanity enforcement was arbitrary and capricious. The court then remanded the Third Circuit's similar finding against the FCC's indecency fine of CBS for fleeting nudity. It is that court's review that occasioned the request for more info on the standard of recklessness. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...son_Reveal.php

12-29-2010, 08:23 AM	#15
MrCleveland Drew Carey from Hell Forum Star Join Date: Nov 10, 2007 Location: The City of Cleveland, in The State of Cleveland, in The United States of Cleveland Posts: 14,222	What the hell are they going to do next? Have Donald Duck wear pants? Call "The Dick van Dyke Show" "The Bleep van Bleep Show"? Show ALL the performers from the waist-up? Make Tom and Jerry be friends, like have alternate endings to their older cartoons? Show the Test Pattern every time there's a fight on Jerry Springer? When someone farts on TV, it's going to be a Steve Wright Joke?
	__________________ Thank God for kids that love Obscure Things. Lee Hazlewood (1929-2007) You ARE Special to God! Rev. Ernest Angely (August 1921-May 2021)