Janet Jackson’s Boob-flash Case in Court

CBS wants FCC fine money back

Inebriated Press
September 13, 2007

Should the judges revoke the $550,000 fine the FCC levied against CBS for Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show?  CBS says “yes” and the FCC says “no”.  Janet Jackson’s boob had no comment and Justin Timberlake just smiled and buffed his MTV awards.  At issue: who is liable for out-of-control actors and actresses?  And if no one is liable, can breasts be exposed indiscriminately?  Lots of young guys want to know the answer to that important question.

“It’s about time we start relaxing the TV standards and start showing flesh the way it was intended,” said Salty Extract a local polygamist and unmarried guy who likes hooters.  “I mean come on, it was the Super Bowl.  Sex and violence go together like cookies and cream, caramel and apples.”   But not everyone is taking it quite so casually.

“I am shocked over this entire debate,” said Hugh Heffner, Playboy founder and fondler of thousands of breasts over the years.  “I’m not taking this casually.  This is a silly debate and a waste of taxpayers’ money.  The FCC should give the cash back to CBS and start worrying about things other than boobies.  Breasts were made to be exposed in any and every way possible.  It’s the right thing to do.”

The debate over liability is mostly legal, statutory and constitutional – though one of the judges, Marjorie O. Rendell, asked: If Paris Hilton is paid to appear as a guest on David Letterman’s show and signs a contract to act appropriately, but then does not, is CBS liable?  The FCC lawyer, Eric Miller, said: Yes, probably; unless she’s my client, then she can do whatever she damn well pleases.  It is a free country after all.

A ruling is expected in a few months but it’s anticipated that breasts will remain a topic of discussion, visualization and fondling well into the future.

© 2007 InebriatedPress.com

Comments Off on Janet Jackson’s Boob-flash Case in Court

Filed under Humor, IP News

Comments are closed.