And now, from the "CBS, FCC, and 36D" files and Yahoo! News...

Sudiegirl sez: You know, I think I’m one of the few Americans that MISSED this important television event. I’m not even sure why I missed it, but missed it I did. So, as usual, I’ll stroll through and wreak havoc where e’re I roam.

CBS' appeal of Jackson fine denied again
By Brooks Boliek
Thu Jun 1, 3:22 AM ET

The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday unanimously rejected CBS' request to rescind its proposal to fine the network $550,000 for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. (OK…I’ve never found this out. Was this an accident or was it intentional on ol’ Janet’s part?)

In its order turning back CBS' appeal, the FCC said it had correctly applied the nation's indecency standards to the broadcast in which Jackson's breast was accidentally bared when singer Justin Timberlake pulled off part of her bustier during the program. (Whew…I’m glad they were thorough in that last sentence. The last thing we need to know is whether the FCC applied something to Janet’s breast themselves. That would be “oogy”.)

"We reject CBS' contention that the commission misapplied the test for broadcast indecency in the (original order)," the FCC wrote. (So they’re saying that CBS applied something to Ms. Jackson’s breast instead?) "In doing so, we note that CBS does not contest the commission's determination that the material at issue here falls within the subject matter scope of our indecency definition because it 'describe(d) or depict(ed) sexual or excretory organs or activities.' Rather, CBS takes issue with our conclusion that the Super Bowl halftime show was patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." (In short, it’s the “everyone ELSE is doing it” theory that children employ with parents?)

On September 22, 2004, the FCC proposed the then-maximum fining of all 20 of CBS' owned-and-operated stations the then-maximum $27,500 for the incident broadcasts. (That’s a total of $550,000. *gulp*)

As defined by the FCC, material is indecent if it "in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." (Ah…”antics with semantics”…a game the whole family can play!)

While obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment, indecent speech is. The federal courts and the FCC have ruled that such speech can be safely aired from 10 p.m.-6 a.m. (So no cocky-doody-poopy talk until 10 PM, folks.)

While the indecency regulations have been upheld by a number of appellate courts, the original precedent was set by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978 in the Pacifica Foundation v. FCC case that centered around a broadcast of George Carlin's "Filthy Words" comedy routine. (Ah…that famous routine that has inspired many people since its creation. However, here's a question: do network censors stay uninformed about a performer's controversy - meaning, in this case, they'd never heard the "Filthy Words" routine?)

In its appeal, the network said the proposed fine -- technically a notice of apparent liability -- defied logic because the commission lacked any evidence that the network, or its parent at the time Viacom Inc., knew about the action in advance. (Well, how could that be, unless it was a live broadcast with no five-second delay?)

Rejecting CBS' attempt to get the commission to reconsider its decision, the commission sets up what could become another battle over the nation's indecency laws. (Jeez…any time there’s a chance of war with Janet Jackson’s mammaries popping out, that’s a good reason to bring the male troops home, at least. But what about the women that serve? They need some inspiration too! My suggestion? George Clooney having a wardrobe malfunction of some sort. Maybe Jamie Foxx for the younger folks...I’m so brilliant!!!!)

CBS and the other networks already have appealed March 15 decisions that netted proposed fines that totaled $3.6 million for "the broadcast of fleeting, isolated and -- in some cases -- unintentional words." (Well, now…I wouldn’t say that. There’s some intent there – whether it’s unconscious or conscious, that’s the thing. Those words have to be lurking somewhere in the brain in order to be lured out, do they not?)

Executives at the network said it was too early to say whether or not they would take the Super Bowl case to court. (Gee…that’d be really heavy to carry…) The network said it still disagreed with the FCC. (How nice of them to reinforce it. Very considerate, don’t you think?)

"CBS has apologized to the American people many times for the inappropriate and unexpected halftime incident during the 2004 Super Bowl, and we have taken steps to make certain it will never happen again," the network said. (Translation: “Would ya shut up already? It was an accident, they weren’t that big, and Justin looked really embarrassed. Enough already!”) "But we continue to disagree with the FCC's finding that the broadcast was legally indecent. We will continue to pursue all remedies necessary to affirm our legal rights, and so today's decision by the FCC is just another step in that process." (Translation: “The FCC is nothin’ but a buncha poopyheads that get all upset about something small.” Apologies to the FCC and Janet Jackson’s cup size.)

While the commission vote was 5-0, one commissioner said the panel has failed to give broadcasters the guidance they need to make decisions about what would violate the indecency laws. (Well, yet another episode of “Antics with Semantics” will be coming right up. Indecency occurs when an incident has 'describe(d) or depict(ed) sexual or excretory organs or activities.' OK…I’m with that, I guess, but indecency is in the eye of the miscreant, is it not? Also, could someone explain to me how basic cable stations like MTV seem to get away with more? Do different rules apply to them?)

"While I agree with the ultimate outcome of today's Order on Reconsideration, I concur in part because the commission again has not provided much-needed clarity and guidance to our decision-making process in indecency enforcement," said Jonathan Adelstein, a Democratic appointee. (Translation: “Explain yourselves, ya goobers!” OK, I added the “ya goobers” part myself.)

While Adelstein wants the commission to exercise more clarity, he also thought the commission should fine only the CBS-owned stations and not all the independently-owned affiliates that carried the program. (Now that makes sense. However, how much responsibility should the independent affiliates take? None? A little? It’s like driving the getaway car or something.)

"I continue to believe the commission has decided erroneously to fine only CBS owned-and-operated stations, not all stations that broadcast the indecent material," he wrote. (Translation: “YOU WERE WRONG!”) "Notwithstanding the fact that this commission has always purported to apply a national indecency standard on the broadcast medium, the commission has failed to penalize the vast majority of stations that actually broadcast the offending halftime performance." (Translation: “You guys have dirty minds and selective memory too!”)

The FCC action comes as Congress is on the verge of approving legislation that would raise the current maximum fine for broadcasting indecent content from $32,500 per incident to $325,000 per incident. A bill doing that has cleared the Senate and the House is expected to approve it and send it to President Bush for his signature. (Oh man…I wonder what that will do to my cable rates?)

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

Sudiegirl’s final opinion?

Personally, I think it’d be MORE indecent to show breasts on TV that look like…well, MINE. Then again, I’d trip over them on the way to the stage and hurt myself. Gee, that was too much information, wasn’t it? Eeewww…