|
Janet's BOOB (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
Ignorance?;) |
You took the words right out of my mouth. :p
But yeah, it's just a breast, who cares, woman has one. I don't see what the hell all the fuss is about. |
|
|
| Radagast |
Kids: Believe it or not some parents don't want their children to see these types of things.
Religion: Christianity. Main religion of U.S., etc...
Morals: Some people think nudity isn't moral in certain circumstances. It's why you don't walk around publicly naked when it's hot. Why? I don't know but somehow it turned out that way so that's how it is.
Why you don't understand: You lack one/more/all of these things and also fail to understand other's right to take these things seriously.
If someone doesn't want to see these kinds of things on free tv for whatever reason, who cares? Do you have some overwhelming need to see breasts all day that you can't take the time/money to download/buy some pr0n somewhere?
Hey I have a question. What's your problem with "America's" "problem" with Janet Jacksons breast? |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| the pride of shame. |
|
|
| {b.s.e.} |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
Kids:
Christianity.
Morals:
Why you don't understand: You lack one/more/all of these things and also lack the ability to understand them. |
Hold on there, pardner. Morals have nothing to do with this situation. The human body is as immoral as the bible, and the idea of a breast [willingly] exposed to the public is hardly criminal. This is a ratings game, and CBS caters to a what are most likely conservative sponsors. Christianity is moot here, this is football; you should have been in church instead of watching the game. Kids? Kids by the age of 9 knows what a woman's body looks like, it's taught in school.
ANyways.. whatever. Brain shutting down rather rapidly, it seems. Bottom line, no big deal.  |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
Kids: Believe it or not some parents don't want their children to see these types of things.
Religion: Christianity. Main religion of U.S., etc... |
Oh no, my children might see the human body, whatever shall I do? I know, lets pray to Jesus, that will make our filthy unclean bodies remain hidden from us all!
FFS, it's just the human body, it's nothing to be ashamed of, is it really that much of an issue? Perhaps there's a world wide conspiracy amongst women to publicly display their breasts and therefore enslave the world!
I just don't see what all the fuss is about. :conf: |
|
|
| Zureal |
| quote: |
Morals: Some people think nudity isn't moral in certain circumstances. It's why you don't walk around publicly naked when it's hot. Why? I don't know but somehow it turned out that way so that's how it is.
Hey I have a question. What's your problem with "America's" "problem" with Janet Jacksons breast? |
All i can say is... :nervous: |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| so, what exactly happened, since i don't watch superbowl and the news here thankfully don't care? justin cut off her tit? |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Radagast
Kids: Believe it or not some parents don't want their children to see these types of things.
Religion: Christianity. Main religion of U.S., etc...
Morals: Some people think nudity isn't moral in certain circumstances. It's why you don't walk around publicly naked when it's hot. Why? I don't know but somehow it turned out that way so that's how it is.
Why you don't understand: You lack one/more/all of these things and also fail to understand other's right to take these things seriously.
If someone doesn't want to see these kinds of things on free tv for whatever reason, who cares? Do you have some overwhelming need to see breasts all day that you can't take the time/money to download/buy some pr0n somewhere?
Hey I have a question. What's your problem with "America's" "problem" with Janet Jacksons breast? |
That's why bone crushing violence, Viagra, and beer ads are perfectly fine right? ;) |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/new.../04jackson.html
Context drives result when TV dares to bare
By PHIL KLOER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In 1995, a young woman on a CBS television show pulled back her gown and exposed both of her breasts, completely. The show was "Chicago Hope," a medical drama, and the actress was playing a patient recovering from post-cancer breast reconstruction surgery. Even though it aired in prime time, CBS received not a peep of protest.
For a Super Bowl halftime show that revealed a lot less, CBS is now facing a federal government inquiry and continuing public outcry.
The Federal Communications Commission is investigating both the exposure of Janet Jackson's breast, which FCC Chairman Michael Powell called a "classless, crass and deplorable stunt," and the entire halftime show, which featured bumping, grinding dancers and nonstop crotch-grabbing by rapper Nelly.
But the differing reactions to the two breast exposures, and to much of what happens on television, show the importance of context -- the halftime show was part of a live event viewed by one of the largest television audiences of the year, millions of families who were not expecting such displays.
The reaction also demonstrates the difficulty some have in drawing the line between decent and indecent.
"There are a lot of different standards out there," said Robert Thompson, professor of popular culture at Syracuse University. "What's acceptable language for a 17-year-old on a high school campus is very different from what's acceptable for his grandmother or his parents.
"You've got shows like 'The Sopranos' using the ugliest, harshest language, but doing it in the context of a really great show, and you've got other stuff that's just vulgarity for the sake of vulgarity," Thompson said.
Drawing the line
MTV, which staged Sunday's halftime show, has been airing lascivious dancing, crotch-grabbing and partial nudity for years. But a lot of people watching the Super Bowl had no idea how blatant it had become.
The line between decent and indecent is "difficult to define," said Melissa Caldwell, director of media and publications for the Parents Television Council, a TV watchdog group that has filed a complaint with the FCC over the Super Bowl show.
"Certainly some things that offend some in society don't offend other folks," Caldwell said. "It's appropriate to say that 'hell' and 'damn' are always going to be part of the television landscape -- that cat is out of the bag. But the f-word is not appropriate. Certain sexual terms and certain kinds of nudity are not appropriate."
"A lot of people from all over the political spectrum are concerned about the coarseness of popular culture," said Marjorie Heins, director of the Free Expression Policy Project at the National Coalition Against Censorship. "It's not just the religious right.
"But the First Amendment relies on the ability to explore cultural attitudes and styles, not all of which are approved by the mainstream," Heins said. "We shouldn't turn to the federal government to ask what is appropriate."
Enforcing standards
The FCC's power to punish CBS stems from comedian George Carlin's famous "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" monologue, which a California radio station aired in the 1970s.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its 1978 decision FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, held that the FCC could enforce standards of decency.
The court's 1978 ruling also set a legal standard for indecency in broadcasting that is still in use: any depiction or description of "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a manner that it deems "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium."
But Thompson said the FCC's job of enforcing "contemporary community standards" in today's sprawling culture is "almost undoable."
And the FCC is not empowered to regulate cable television.
The agency was set up in the 1930s to monitor airwaves owned by the public, which means broadcasters.
Executives at the mainstream broadcasters look enviously at what their cable counterparts get away with, then try to compete, Thompson suggests. No over-the-air broadcaster can be as uninhibited as HBO is with "Sex and the City," but the explicitness of that show and many others on cable encourages the networks to move in that direction.
So CBS used MTV to stage the halftime show -- both networks are owned by Viacom -- in order to add some edge and appeal to younger viewers. If the production had aired on MTV and not CBS, the FCC would have had no jurisdiction over it.
In recent years, the FCC has been seen by some observers as taking a more hands-off policy on indecency enforcement in television, although it has levied some heavy fines against radio stations with "shock jocks" such as Howard Stern.
Dean shrugs it off
While Powell, who was appointed by President Bush to head the FCC, was condemning Sunday's broadcast, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean shrugged it off. "Considering what's on television these days, I think the FCC is being pretty silly about investigating this," Dean told reporters on the campaign trail.
The former Vermont governor said Americans with cable can tune in "far worse things" while "cruising through cable at regular viewing hours."
Outrage over what's on television is also somewhat cyclical.
In 1996, the television industry, under pressure from Congress, agreed to set up a ratings system for TV shows and equipped all new TV sets with monitoring devices that would allow parents to block certain shows.
The device is known as the "V chip," for violence, because, while the largely ignored TV ratings system also addresses profanity and sexual content, it was TV violence that was the bigger issue when the chip was established in the late 1990s. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
FCC Chairman Michael Powell
|
This guy is a first class d*** in my opinion and needs to be replaced.
Not for launching this "investigation" into Jackson's boob, but because he has allowed large corporate conglomerates to own and control even more of what the public sees and reads. Anyone who has read the polls showing how a large percentage of Americans believed Saddam was linked to 9/11 realizes the possible implications that entails.
President Bush is also in the pocket of big media, but most of Congress and the public have defied their views.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...DAE0894DB404482
| quote: |
WASHINGTON, July 23 — The vote in the House today to derail media ownership rules was a setback for Michael K. Powell, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, who was guided by the laws, rather than the politics, constraining media conglomerates.
Mr. Powell became chairman in 2001 with a broad mandate to deregulate, bolstered by a number of court rulings that had backed industry challenges to telecommunications and media regulation.
But on both fronts in recent months, he has faced resistance, most recently with the building Congressional momentum to overturn the rules the F.C.C. approved in June allowing big media companies to get even larger.
"This is a real dangerous spot for Powell," said Andrew Schwartzman, head of the Media Access Project, an advocacy group. "He is facing a kind of Congressional repudiation of a rare kind."
Mr. Powell, however, serves at the discretion of one person, the president, who has threatened to veto the $37.9 billion spending bill if the provision reversing the media rules remains in it. The chairman, technically, does not need public or Congressional support once he is in office. At the same time, he has a bully pulpit that he can use to build support in line with a White House's agenda, and in this case, he failed to use it effectively.
One problem is that Mr. Powell has approached his position like the antitrust lawyer he is — with subtle legalistic arguments that fail to stick in the public mind. He argued in June as the rules rolled out: "Keeping the rules as they are, as some so stridently suggest, was not a viable option. Without today's surgery, the rules would assuredly meet a swift death."
The provision the House approved today would allow any one network owner to reach up to 35 percent of the nation's households. The F.C.C. rules had increased that to 45 percent, partially in response to court rulings that said the lower cap had not been justified.
Today, Mr. Powell put out a statement from his vacation retreat (his office would not say where he was) defending the rules, which he said were mandated by Congress and the courts. "We are confident in our decision," he said.
His statement also noted that in February a federal court had branded the previous commission's decision to maintain the existing rules, including the 35 percent cap, as "arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law."
These may be true, but these are arguments that appeal to the dispassionate mind of a judge, not the emotional public fervor. What Mr. Powell failed to understand is that given a choice between big government and big media, the public often sides with the government.
The F.C.C. — along with the Securities Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission — is designed to be a bipartisan regulatory agency largely insulated from everyday politics. The F.C.C. is not allowed to lobby on Capitol Hill. But the number of 3-to-2 votes registered during Mr. Powell's term belies the politicization that has occurred on his watch.
Not too much can be read into today's overwhelming 400-21 House approval of the appropriations bill, given that few members would be willing to hold up financing for government programs for something that essentially affects only four networks.
A more provocative measure comes from Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, who is trying to invoke the seldom-used Congressional Review Act to overturn the entirety of the F.C.C.'s regulatory order. He has gathered more than 30 supporters so far, a number of them Republicans.
"The Congressional reaction is not good for him, but it's not devastating," said Blair Levin, an analyst at Legg Mason who previously served as chief of staff at the F.C.C., referring to Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell has denied published reports that he is thinking of resigning. And, at least for now, he has the support of those who matter. "The White House is backing him up," Mr. Levin said. "At least threatening to do a veto is support for what Powell did."
|
|
|
|
| Cal |
The problem with America is the people who settled it, like the puritans and other protestants.
Their values persist to this day in North America. It's so stupid in my opinion, theres so much violence on tv, but a boob is flashed and its armageddon all of a sudden.
Damn rednecks who make this happen should loosen the hell up and think about what there doing. |
|
|
| Swamper |
The american porn machine has been so successful in marketing sex & sexuality that any form of nudity (even breast feeding in public (to some)) is now connected (sub-consciously) with that very industry. In a sense, the porn industry's drive for revenue and satisfying the desires of the masses have led the ignorant to protest anything 'revealing' as being a sign of lesser moral values and the devil (lol). You know, let's blame porn, video games, and marijuana for the problems of america -- right. :rolleyes:
Then, on the other end of the spectrum, you have a pocket of pervs in religious occupations abusing kids - but, u know, the masses have turned a blind eye to that (for the most part) until recently.
It's all about brainwashing.. a bunch of americans die (almost) everyday in Iraq but you dont dare see a bodybag on TV or any objective footage - just a sugar-coated story that doesn't take into account the human element. |
|
|
|
|
