What the fu... Was that Miss Jackson's..?

[Easy Mac]

The flag was being misused long before 9/11

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

The flag was being misused long before 9/11

True

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Yesssss, let's praise the whole Super Bowl halftime message that women are just sexual play-things for men to have their way with. Maybe next year we could have an actual rape as an encore. What idiocy.

Perception... I didn't see this when I watched the halftime show. I saw two rappers I don't particularly like, using old "raps" of theirs... it was all a show... like I said in another message, no one I was watching with, and no one I saw today (yes, some do have children), commented on how their kids just got influenced to treat women as play things. They all said how funny the Janet Jackson popping out was... I guess I'll have to see how their children grow up... maybe their boys will grow up treating women as play things, and their girls allow themselves to be treated as play things... all because of this halftime show.


I don't want to comment anymore... I come here to read stories and reply.. not get into a discussion about cultures and stuff. This is the last you'll hear of me on this stuff...

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

The flag was being misused long before 9/11

You know what is funny/strange? As I read your post, a commerical for the movie "Miracle" came on the TV with Jim Craig's character draping himself in the Flag. I began to wonder "Did that flag touch the ground" Hmmmm......

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by j51

This is what happens when you remove God from public schools.

I hope you are kidding...

[Craptacular]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Since 9/11/2001, the Flag has been misused but that has been accepted as a "show of patriotism" The Flag should never be worn as part of wearing apparel but how many jackets, t-shirts, hats, bikinis etc do we see with the Flag? I am not excusing the use but I think it was a sign of ignorance than disrespect

So is SkyDog ignorant or disrespectful??

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

So is SkyDog ignorant or disrespectful??

I don't see how anyone could think that picture is disgraceful.

[CamEdwards]

I don't see any bars on that bikini. I just see the stars.

[DanGarion]

You know if we all lived in Europe we'd be talking about the game and not the boob.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I don't see any bars on that bikini.

Just look at the front and you'll see 1.

[Honolulu_Blue]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3453855.stm

Inquiry into Janet Jackson flash

US federal TV regulators have launched an inquiry into Janet Jackson's Super Bowl performance, which left her more than a little exposed.

Jackson's right breast was seen by millions on TV after Justin Timberlake pulled at her bodice in what was a planned "costume reveal" during a duet.

"It was not my intention that it go as far as it did," said Jackson.

The National Football League has said that MTV could lose its contract to produce the half-time show.

"We were extremely disappointed by the show," said NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

"It was totally inconsistent with assurances our office was given about the content of the show."

We don't buy for a minute that this was not planned

Jan LaRue, Concerned Women for America
He added: "The show was offensive, inappropriate and embarrassing to us and our fans."

Michael Powell, Federal Communications Commission chairman, said it was a "classless, crass and deplorable stunt".

The FCC, the main government media watchdog, has announced an inquiry to see whether the display of flesh constituted indecency.

Unaware

Mr Powell said he had ordered a "thorough and swift" investigation.

"The decision to have a costume reveal at the end of my half-time show performance was made after final rehearsals," Jackson said in a statement.

She added that MTV, which produced the half-time show, had been completely unaware of the plans.

The incident has sparked feverish debate in the US, following the controversial half-time show during the Super Bowl final between the New England Patriots and the Carolina Panthers.

Jackson's spokesman Stephen Huvane was quoted by CNN as saying the incident "was a malfunction of the wardrobe".

He said: "It was not intentional... he was supposed to pull away the bustier and leave the red-lace bra."

Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative Concerned Women for America group, called it a "pornographic show".

"We don't buy for a minute that this was not planned. Everybody knew what was going on here."

-----------------------------------

This is great. It's good to see our tax payer money being put to good use. Any second of time wasted on this inquiry, any penny spent on this is an absolute f'ing outrage. It's ridiculous.

I can believe if you though the halftime show was classless and a bit raunchy, the grinding and all that. But for "the boob" however no one would have been talking about this. That's the problem. We saw a little bit of boob-flesh (no nipple even!) and everyone is outraged. Nobody cared until that happened.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

This is great. It's good to see our tax payer money being put to good use. Any second of time wasted on this inquiry, any penny spent on this is an absolute f'ing outrage. It's ridiculous.

I couldn't disagree more.

It's long past time the FCC began to actually do their job once again, specifically with regard to violations of existing rules.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I couldn't disagree more.

It's long past time the FCC began to actually do their job once again, specifically with regard to violations of existing rules.

Maybe it's been that I've lived in Europe for two years where no one cares about this sort of thing. Millions of little Euro-kiddies have grown up with uncut R-rated movies being shown on prime-time TV for years. Tits. Swear words. All of that. They seem fine about it.

A tit, with the nipple covered mind you, (what happened to the cardinal rule that it aint nudity until the nipple makes an appearance?) should be the least of or worries and anytime spent "determining" the deceny of a bared tit with the nipple covered is an absolute waste of time and resources.

[Ksyrup]

Look familiar? (Safe for work)

hxxp://art.towerrecords.com/coverart.asp?S=2319369&X=178&Y=178


Who knew Janet was a Lacuna Coil fan?!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Maybe it's been that I've lived in Europe for two years where no one cares about this sort of thing.

HB, honest to goodness, I don't mean what I'm about to say to sound harsh (qualified because it's tough to gauge tone over the internet) but ...

if you like that style of broadcasting enough, then perhaps you should stay in Europe.

The rules for broadcasters in the U.S. are reasonably clear and the mood is very much leaning toward not only enforcement of existing rules but it appears there's a good chance that we'll see them tightened as well, particularly in terms of penalties that have more bite than the current ones.

CBS et al would have had to really work at picking a worse time for an incident like this to occur. Both the FCC and Congress are already on the warpath about content and this was like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Since 9/11/2001, the Flag has been misused but that has been accepted as a "show of patriotism" The Flag should never be worn as part of wearing apparel but how many jackets, t-shirts, hats, bikinis etc do we see with the Flag? I am not excusing the use but I think it was a sign of ignorance than disrespect

Kid Rock chose a creative way in which to show his patriotism. I guess I don't see the big problem...

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Since 9/11/2001, the Flag has been misused but that has been accepted as a "show of patriotism" The Flag should never be worn as part of wearing apparel but how many jackets, t-shirts, hats, bikinis etc do we see with the Flag? I am not excusing the use but I think it was a sign of ignorance than disrespect

Not to mention the number of goofballs who mounted the things on their cars in the immediate aftermath, and then let them flap in the breeze for months until they were in tatters.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I couldn't disagree more.

It's long past time the FCC began to actually do their job once again, specifically with regard to violations of existing rules.

Goodness Jon and I agree!

It isn't just about the flashing, it is about the whole halftime show. (for the record Puffy was just as guilty as Kid Rock and the rest of them)

As far as the flag incident, people do stuff with the flag that I would never do, but I put part of that on my military background. The flag to me is sacred and to others it's just a prop. Nothing I can really do about it unless I ran into Kid Rock for about 5 minutes.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

Goodness Jon and I agree!

It isn't just about the flashing, it is about the whole halftime show. (for the record Puffy was just as guilty as Kid Rock and the rest of them)

As far as the flag incident, people do stuff with the flag that I would never do, but I put part of that on my military background. The flag to me is sacred and to others it's just a prop. Nothing I can really do about it unless I ran into Kid Rock for about 5 minutes.

I don't have a military background, but I guess I'm one of those "sheeple" who were changed by 9/11. I don't fly a flag at home because I'm afraid I'd start to get lax about its care. I get annoyed when I see the tattered flag flapping around the antenna of a car, or flying above a business while in shreds, or worn as a serape by a white trash rock star.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I pretty much agree. I don't mind the t-shirts and jackets and stuff, but it comes to an actual flag or facsimile people should treat it with respect. It is depressing to me to see it misused, abused or used for something other than its intention. A lot of blood over the years have been spilled over that flag and the right to hoist it properly.

I'll get off the soapbox now.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

Goodness Jon and I agree!

It isn't just about the flashing, it is about the whole halftime show. (for the record Puffy was just as guilty as Kid Rock and the rest of them)

One thing about the flashing that was mentioned early in the thread but has been lost in recent discussion: this wasn't just a bit of nudity or her flashing herself, it was him reaching over, grabbing, and ripping off a hunk of her clothing. Doesn't this come pretty close to a simulated sexual assault (while she may have known it was coming, part of the act was for her to pretend to be surprised and offended)? That's not the type of behavior we want to be encouraging, is it?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

HB, honest to goodness, I don't mean what I'm about to say to sound harsh (qualified because it's tough to gauge tone over the internet) but ...

if you like that style of broadcasting enough, then perhaps you should stay in Europe.

The rules for broadcasters in the U.S. are reasonably clear and the mood is very much leaning toward not only enforcement of existing rules but it appears there's a good chance that we'll see them tightened as well, particularly in terms of penalties that have more bite than the current ones.

CBS et al would have had to really work at picking a worse time for an incident like this to occur. Both the FCC and Congress are already on the warpath about content and this was like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

Jon, no harshness felt at all. I can sympathize if you feel that the FCC needs to be patrolling the TV waves more diligently. There is a lot of crap on TV. I just think using this incident as a platform for this is stupid. Only people on the fringe would have cared about the lame-ass halftime show if there hadn't been two seconds of one bared tit.

The idea that a bared female breast is something to be afraid of, something that shocks and horrifies a nation, and something that can corrupt children just seems utterly ridiculous to me. It really does.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

I pretty much agree. I don't mind the t-shirts and jackets and stuff, but it comes to an actual flag or facsimile people should treat it with respect. It is depressing to me to see it misused, abused or used for something other than its intention. A lot of blood over the years have been spilled over that flag and the right to hoist it properly.

With all due respect (and I have all the respect in the world for those who served) wasn't the fighting for what that flag represented and not the flag itself? The meaning of the American flag is so powerful and so complex that, to me, it is at its best when people use it in ways that are unconventional, unpopular and controversial. The ultimate in freedom of expression - one of the most important freedoms that we enjoy in this country - is that we are free to use the American flag to express ourselves in any way we want.

[clintl]

I agree 100% with what Subby said. What the flag represents is what's important, and I get annoyed when people elevate the symbol above the principles it supposedly symbolizes.

[rkmsuf]

I'm not a Kid Rock guy really but he was the best of all the perfomers at halftime...

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Only people on the fringe would have cared about the lame-ass halftime show if there hadn't been two seconds of one bared tit.

The most recent articles about this situation indicate that many people were upset about the show as a whole, not just the "exposure." That seems to be the titilating headline (haha), but the FCC received complaints about the entire show, not just that one thing. SO I think your assertion is incorrect. It's not just "people on the fringe."

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The idea that a bared female breast is something to be afraid of, something that shocks and horrifies a nation, and something that can corrupt children just seems utterly ridiculous to me. It really does.

It's not ridiculous to just you. I have 2 young kids, and I guess it just wouldn't bother me that much to have them see a boob on TV. Explicit sexual behavior is one thing, but a boob is something else.

Doesn't matter anyway, since they were both in bed at the time.

I'm surprised about all the talk about the FCC here... I thought conservatives were for free-markets and the end of government regulation? I guess when it comes to seeing a titty, that's where we draw the line.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I thought conservatives were for free-markets and the end of government regulation? I guess when it comes to seeing a titty, that's where we draw the line.

You've haven't seen me make too many arguments in that direction.

Then again, the online tests rightly show me as an authoritarian moreso than a conservative

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I'm not a Kid Rock guy really but he was the best of all the perfomers at halftime...

That's not saying too much...

I went out for lunch yesterday and Rush Limbaugh was on the local AM station, and he said that Kid Rock was the only performer who didn't lip-synch, yet he was probably the only one who should have. I tend to agree with that.

I asked this earlier, but haven't seen a satisfactory response - was there some sort of "theme" to that show, or did they just randomly pick songs that were 5-20 years old on purpose? What was the point of Kid Rock performing a song from 1998?

[CamEdwards]

And I thought liberals were all in favor of more government regulation... but I guess that doesn't apply when it comes to enforcing standards of decency.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The most recent articles about this situation indicate that many people were upset about the show as a whole, not just the "exposure." That seems to be the titilating headline (haha), but the FCC received complaints about the entire show, not just that one thing. SO I think your assertion is incorrect. It's not just "people on the fringe."

It was an odd production for the event. I don't know what happened but they seemed to have forgotten this isn't the "10 spot" and millions of people watch this thing...people like families maybe?

The idiots got so much pub from the whole britney/madonna kiss they thought they could do anything...dumbasses...

Combining badly done perfomances with tasteless performances had to be a homerun...

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by Subby

With all due respect (and I have all the respect in the world for those who served) wasn't the fighting for what that flag represented and not the flag itself? The meaning of the American flag is so powerful and so complex that, to me, it is at its best when people use it in ways that are unconventional, unpopular and controversial. The ultimate in freedom of expression - one of the most important freedoms that we enjoy in this country - is that we are free to use the American flag to express ourselves in any way we want.

The flag is a national symbol that allows us to express ourselves in any way we want. You present an interesting dilemma if you should use the flag itself in any way you want as long as it is not desecration. I say no, you say yes. In my opinion, the flag should be used as it was meant to be used, a symbol flying proudly for the many years of trial that went into building this republic.

When I see the flag torn up or shredded from lack of care or hanging from a building the wrong way I admit it is a pet peeve of mine. I equate it to spraying graffiti on Mount Everest or something similar. Draping it over one's self doesn't do anything for me. The same message could have been accomplished flying on a flagpole in its proper place right next to Kid Rock.

The only other proper use to me of the flag is when one of our heroes is put to rest.

You and I just differ on the subject, it doesn't mean I am right.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's not saying too much...

I went out for lunch yesterday and Rush Limbaugh was on the local AM station, and he said that Kid Rock was the only performer who didn't lip-synch, yet he was probably the only one who should have. I tend to agree with that.

I asked this earlier, but haven't seen a satisfactory response - was there some sort of "theme" to that show, or did they just randomly pick songs that were 5-20 years old on purpose? What was the point of Kid Rock performing a song from 1998?

In a weird sort of way I admired Kid Rock for a least "keeping it real" and bringing an actual performance. I thought he sounded fine and brought some energy.

That Nelly and P-Diddy thing was a disgrace. They couldn't even get half the lip-sync down.

Janet was hot 15 years ago for crying out loud...not today. When she started Rythem Nation it became a complete joke...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

or did they just randomly pick songs that were 5-20 years old on purpose?

Purely a guess but I imagine the songs were selected on the basis of being the one's mostly likely recognizable to the widest audience possible. Something along the lines of a "biggest hit" criteria.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Oops I should say when they have the huge flag held by a bunch of people and run out into the middle of a stadium for the national anthem or something similar that is ok too even though it is upside down or off angle to some people there.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And I thought liberals were all in favor of more government regulation... but I guess that doesn't apply when it comes to enforcing standards of decency.

Any time you talk about standards of decency, you're talking about a pretty subjective set of criteria.

Liberals are for freedom of artistic expression as well. CBS will have to deal with the negative publicity that this stunt has generated, but why in the world should there be any sort of government penalty? There shouldn't be.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

The flag is a national symbol that allows us to express ourselves in any way we want. You present an interesting dilemma if you should use the flag itself in any way you want as long as it is not desecration. I say no, you say yes. In my opinion, the flag should be used as it was meant to be used, a symbol flying proudly for the many years of trial that went into building this republic.

When I see the flag torn up or shredded from lack of care or hanging from a building the wrong way I admit it is a pet peeve of mine. I equate it to spraying graffiti on Mount Everest or something similar. Draping it over one's self doesn't do anything for me. The same message could have been accomplished flying on a flagpole in its proper place right next to Kid Rock.

The only other proper use to me of the flag is when one of our heroes is put to rest.

You and I just differ on the subject, it doesn't mean I am right.

Well put. Again, this to me is an example the wonderful paradox of the American flag. It represents something so incredibly sacred that the thought of defiling or desecrating it seems borderline obscene. However, it is often the most egregious and disgusting act against the flag which truly represents its power to symbolize our freedoms.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Any time you talk about standards of decency, you're talking about a pretty subjective set of criteria.

Liberals are for freedom of artistic expression as well. CBS will have to deal with the negative publicity that this stunt has generated, but why in the world should there be any sort of government penalty? There shouldn't be.

It's not subjective at all. From the FCC website:

Indecent Broadcasts Restricted to 10 P.M. - 6 A.M.

The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. In applying the "community standards for the broadcast medium" criterion, the Commission has stated, "The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant." Indecent programming contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. For a complete summary of the Commission's case law regarding the indecency standard, see Industry Guidance On the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency, 16 FCC Rcd 7999 (2001).

Consistent with a subsequent statute and federal court decisions interpreting the indecency statute, the Commission adopted a rule (47 C.F.R. § 73.3999) pursuant to which broadcasts - both on television and radio - that fit within the definition of indecency and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are subject to indecency enforcement action.

I'm not for more government, but if we have a regulatory agency... it might as well do its job.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It's not subjective at all.

Thanks for taking the time to pull the regs. As it indicates, this ain't exactly brain surgery.

[CamEdwards]

no problem. That, by the way, is for indecent broadcasts. I don't think this would meet the standard of obscene material, so I'm assuming the FCC will be investigating whether or not the halftime show was indecent.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It's not subjective at all. From the FCC website:

So, you're telling me that that monstrous nebulous paragraph is supposed to be authoritative in some way, and not subjective? As if "community standards" and "standards of an average viewer" can be patently quantified? You MUST be joking.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

So, you're telling me that that monstrous nebulous paragraph is supposed to be authoritative in some way, and not subjective?
As if "community standards" and "standards of an average viewer" can be patently quantified? You MUST be joking.

Nope, not joking. I can tell you as a broadcaster that I have a good idea of the standards of the "average listener", and I'm not going to violate those standards. CBS in turn has a pretty good idea of the "average viewer" of the Super Bowl, and the question now is did they fail to live up to the standards set by the average viewer.

Based on the number of emails and phone calls to the FCC complaining about the event... I'd say yes. Was it intentional? I guess the investigation will have to decide that as well.

[miami_fan]

I would be interested to know who was the average viewer of the Super Bowl and what the standards of said viewer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Nope, not joking. I can tell you as a broadcaster that I have a good idea of the standards of the "average listener", and I'm not going to violate those standards.

I dare say that every broadcaster knows exactly what you mean right there.
And could probably relate to the notion of "when in doubt, you've probably crossed the line".

Like I said, it ain't brain surgery, you just ... know.

{And the swift apologies from CBS-TV tells me that they knew too}

[Ajaxab]

I struggle to understand how someone couldn't object to the halftime show. Those who don't have a problem with it appear to be either isolating the alleged 'costume malfunction' as an issue of sex rather than violence and sex and wondering what the big deal is or saying that seeing the halftime show won't have any kind of effect on those who saw it.

Get back to the entire message the halftime show was sending. The show was essentially saying that men can use their power to make women objects and commit sexual assault to possess these objects. That message has to be challenged. Timberlake presented that message and Jackson's actions implicated her in the same idea. She allowed Timberlake to do what he did even if the consequences were more severe than she initially intended. We can't necessarily say that the show was about sex, but Timberlake and Jackson connected violence to sex. Sure, you could question my definition of violence, but if any man did the same thing on the street, I don't think too many people would disagree that he had committed a violent act.

Will this one halftime show change the way people relate to one another? That would be a ludicrous conclusion to come to. However, it's the connection between sex and violence that has to be questioned and the images linking these things in our culture that have to have an effect over time as they continue to bombard us.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I thought conservatives were for free-markets and the end of government regulation?

Only when it applies to companies they own.

[Butter]

And so we come back to Honolulu_Blue's original point....

flashing a tit is not that big a freakin' deal.

And my point: the FCC is about useless to everyone at this point, if they're spending their time on this and not the mass-conglomeration of media companies.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, since the Federal Government has been spending so much of its time lately getting the 10 commandments out of schools and courts to make them safe for secularism, it is kinda nice to see them doing something for which the Constitution actually does authorize them to do. Remember, unlike cable, the broadcast networks have free licenses (some say licenses to print money) to profit over the PUBLIC airwaves, and as such are regulated by FCC standards of decency.

Sick of hearing what Europe thinks or does. So what? I lived there for 4 1/2 years in the 80s. Some really good people there but just as many if not more very jaded and materialistic. Some would even say depraved. Look at the thread going on here about Sweden, supposedly one of the more 'enlightened' countries. Europe to me is nothing more than a barometer of what this country will someday look like as it continues to turn its back on God.

As for the flag, the thing about that is its supposed to be treated as a 'living' thing. It symoblizes the living spirit of freedom in ALL American, a 'collective consciencess" of the country if you will. That's why military honor guards never turn their back on it, but instead 'wheel around' when making a turn. The bothersome thing about Kid Rock and the like is that while they wrap themselves around this 'living symbol of the American spirit of freedom', they only do so to promote themselves and their own profit by it. Just more crass comercialism.

[The_herd]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

And so we come back to Honolulu_Blue's original point....

flashing a tit is not that big a freakin' deal.

This may not be a big deal to you or me, but I can see how others may feel that it is, and we aren't in a position to tell them whether they are right or wrong. There are a lot of people in this country that find such things offensive and the FCC is in place to keep things that are offensive out of broadcasts such as the Super Bowl. There were obviously enough complaints from people to warrant an investigation and if the FCC is simply doing its job I'm not going to complain.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by The_herd

There are a lot of people in this country that find such things offensive and the FCC is in place to keep things that are offensive out of broadcasts such as the Super Bowl.

There are a lot of people in this country who don't find such things offensive. Just because the FCC is in place to do a job, doesn't mean I have to agree with what they do or how they do it.

I just found it humorous that some of the conservatives on the boards here were all of a sudden not only fond of but pushing for more government intervention.