Beliefnet News

Beliefnet News

Judges rescind fine for Janet Jackson’s Superbowl “wardrobe malfunction”

In what the Parent’s Television Council called “a sucker-punch to families everywhere” a court ruling which “reaches the level of judicial stupidity,” has ruled that there was nothing indecent about pop singer Janet Jackson’s breast being bared before 90 million people during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

Janet Jackson covers herself after the famous incident

The Third Circuit Federal Court of Appeals has thrown out the $550,000 fine the Federal Communications Commission had ordered CBS-TV to pay.

The judges ruled that the FCC imposed the original fine “arbitrarily and capriciously.”

If you remember, CBS billed the incident as a “wardrobe malfunction” when Justin Timberlake seemingly ripped off the leather flap covering her breast.

“The F.C.C. failed to acknowledge that its order in this case reflected a policy change and improperly imposed a penalty on CBS for violating a previously unannounced policy,” the court said in a 2-to-1 decision authored by Judge Marjorie O. Rendell and joined by Judge Julio M. Fuentes.

Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica dissented. He wrote the unanimous opinion in 2008 when the appeals court first ruled against the FCC.

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments



Previous Posts

After years of terror, corruption, cancer-stricken Chavez cries out to Jesus on state TV
After years of criticizing the church, kicking out Christian missionaries, assisting terrorists and praising atheists, Venezuela’s mercurial strongman, Hugo Chavez, came home from a botched cancer treatment in Cuba, then took to Venezuela’s airwaves to call out to Christ for help. “Giv

posted 3:30:35pm May. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Understanding Christian Political Engagement
Guest Blogger: Bethany Blankley Pastor Charles Worley of Maiden, North Carolina created a firestorm among Christians and non-Christians when he suggested that homosexuals be rounded up and put inside electrical fences, left to die. Obviously, this is not the Christian message of loving our neighb

posted 10:10:12am May. 24, 2012 | read full post »

Why would "anti-bullying" youth convention speaker mock the Bible, Christian teens?
The report is difficult to believe: A paid “anti-bullying” expert is caught on video ranting at a national convention of high schoolers and is recorded bullying the Christian kids who were offended by his obscenities. They quietly follow his advice to homosexual youth in his “It Gets Better Pr

posted 10:54:19am May. 18, 2012 | read full post »

Are Americans finding God in cyberspace?
Will the church of the future be on line? We seem to be heading that way, says think-tank president Ron Sellers who points to recent findings that among American adults who use the Internet, 44 percent use it for religious purposes.  "This is particularly common among younger Americans," say

posted 1:14:32pm May. 17, 2012 | read full post »

Are "unacceptable religions" fatal for U.S. presidential candidates?
Is there an unwritten religious litmus test for the U.S. presidency? Do voters require candidates to be "not just religious, but acceptably religious"? Yes, say Northwest Nazarene University professors Steve Shaw and Darrin Grinder. [caption id="attachment_11319" align="alignleft" width="480" cap

posted 12:56:17pm May. 14, 2012 | read full post »

Advertisement
Comments read comments(2)
post a comment
Bill Kilpatrick

posted November 3, 2011 at 8:51 pm


I applaud the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for upholding the rule of law. Back in 2004, when the country was still stumbling through the patriotic fog of our post-9/11 trauma, the Bush administration got everything it wanted – from continued occupation of Iraq to a Patriot Act that redefined the meaning of “big government” – including this stab at “the lamestream media.” It was one of many salvos in the “culture war” being waged from the Right, but it represented capricious prosecution. If the Bush FCC wished to change its policy, in terms of how it intended to interpret the meaning of “indecency” – as that term is applied to television broadcasts – it should have given due notice of the policy change. Going after CBS, a network the Bush administration had issues with (because of CBS News’ criticism Bush policy in other areas) represented an abuse of government. It’s nice to see the federal courts correcting this wrong. It’s a victory for the judicial branch.



report abuse
 

Laura Pausini Lyrics

posted November 15, 2011 at 12:01 am


In my opinion it was not Janet Jackson fault. It was totally wardrobe faults so no need to impose big fine on her.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

Share this story


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Help

Media Kit

Subscribe

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.