US court sides with Janet Jackson's breast

nine sixteenths?

How do they work that out? US TV is 30 frames per second (60 if you discount the interlace, and you'd inevitably have half a naked boobie on each of the two interlaced fields that make up one frame).

So assuming that each frame either did, or did not, show raw tittage then that would equate to an impossible 16.875 frames of hot breast action.

I might need to review the footage again to research a plausible answer for this.

another important item

The article misses the bit where the court noted that most of the complaints were copies of the same form letter from one single fundie group, and that pretty much nobody else complained, and basically said "we're ignoring the sheep that can't compose their own complaint letter"

Got Milk?

I'm waiting for the yokels to start masking off the udders on our milk cartons. Major major tits, those are.

As for Janet Jackson, poor cow!

covered nipple?

I beg to differ that the nipple was in fact covered. Strangely pierced, yes... but covered? Not quite.

'rithmatic

Um, 9/16 = 0.5625, 17/30 = 0.5666'

So it was probably 17 frames, and "nine sixteenths" is being used as an approximation because it sounds funnier than seventeen thirtieths.

@ ROlsen

If it only takes you 9/16ths of a second you might want to have your doctor recommend a specialist.

@ Rolsen

You must be hard up, man! (!)

Paris - because she likes a hard up man...

@ROIsen

If it only takes you Nine Sixteenths, I hope you have another way of making your partner happy!

Americans Prudish?

I don't think so. Myopic maybe.

1/2 a second showing a baby-feeder vs an entire song, aimed largely at under-age children, about getting someone ready for sex.

"I'm gonna get you nekkid by the end of this song - oops, I didn't really mean it, no really please don't fine me for doing what I just said I'd do!"

I see a Reg article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/registrars_cater_to_steroids_sellers/) implying internet sites should conform to US law, despite being a global media. How about inciting statutory rape?

Forget the nudity, fine 'em for broadcasting the song!

Before I'm jumped on for being a heavy-handed censor - I'm merely pointing out that stage performers and large corporations are making money from promoting what is an illegal activity for a large proportion of their market.

Government and regulation are no longer about doing the right thing, they are merely about managing the media.

Paris, obviously.

People in Europe were dumbstruck...

...at the reaction. I mean, there are about as many boobs in the world as there are humans (yeah I know some girls are still young but there are enough man-boobs to make up for that). Looking at boobs has been shown to "lower blood pressure" among other things... though clearly not for the prudes. http://www.crazynews.net/dp/1-8.htm

Here's a nice close up of a pair of great tits to improve your health:

http://portuguesbrasileiro.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/?id=2553987&refnum=1282840&SearchLang=PT_BR

And how about this pair of masked boobies?

http://www.darwinsgalapagos.com/gallery/galapagos_picture_4.htm

Compare it to this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369782/Sorry-Maam--I-think-I-just-suffered-wardrobe-malfunction.html

In Malta, a dancer had a "wardrobe malfunction" in front of 50 heads of state and truckloads of TV cameras filming the whole thing for the commonwealth countries. Barely anyone batted an eyelid, and the reaction from everyone (except perhaps Fiona) was a quick chuckle then everyone forgot about it, despite Malta being one of the most conservative countries in Europe.

I guess that depends on the context

Many moons ago, when Alex Hailey's "Root's" came out, I distinctly recall quite a bit of boobage bouncing about, but that apparently was allowed to pass the censors because of historical accuracy.

What Mr. Timberlake coined a "wardrobe malfunction", at least from my recollection, looked intentional. However when Lucy Lawless had an honest to god "malfunction" and they flopped out above her costume, when she raised her arms, after singing the National Anthem, one could tell that clearly wasn't intentional and I vaguely recall her apologizing afterwards.

Personally, I don't see what the ruckus is all about as there have certainly been much more risque' things broadcast over the public airwaves, during "family time". But is it worth a half mil in fines? Nah. But I do believe Mr. Timberlake deserves a punch to the neck for the assumption that the most of the American public would be that stupid to believe such a steaming load of crap, in his assertion that it was a "malfunction".

I chose Paris because even she isn't quite that stupid... Close but not quite.

the country of hypocrites

nipples = bad , guns everywhere = good. Invigilation on everyone in the name of democracy

Luckily I'm not going to US anytime soon.

Americanistan

'Nuff said.

hmm

While complaining about Janet (a boob at the best of times) no-one complained about the erectile disfunction products that were pushed in every commercial break and as someone pointed out at the time, no kid ever went to his parents what's that bouncy thing where as I'll bet a mighty 3p that a lot said "Daddy, daddy , what's erectile disfunction"

US double standards again...

All this from the country that gives us a major slice of the world's porn.

Anyway, from what I remember of the news reports, JJ's tit looked like it had a Borg implant instead of a nipple......

(Paris 'cos she doesn't appear to have proper tits either - more like 2 aspirins on an ironing board)

nine sixteenths

Lucky it was nine sixteenths and not eight sixteenths as then it could have been deemed to be an illegal subliminal image in the UK!

(Tech note: anyone remember the BBC computer series from ~15 years ago where they provided extra info just after after the credits in aroudn 10secs that was designed to be VCR-ed and then replayed by stepping through frame by frame ... until it was pointed out that deliberately introducing images of a half second or less was banned in the UK)

Sexist racists

The lot of them.

I physically felt ill watching The Hoff running on the beach, topless mind you, man boobs a bouncing. No fines from the FCC for that show though. But a brief glimpse of a black girls baby feeder and everyone is up in arms.

Typical Americans, wanted independence to stop slavery etc but their attitude is still of their (former) British overlords. Might as well go back under colonial rule.

Paris - wardrobe malfunction personified

There's hope for America yet. ®

No there isn't.

500,000 phoned to complain about 1 sixteenth of a second. Eh....

Who were they, people from the bible belt???? In which case what were they doing watching the show. It is a western event filled with debauchery that is the pro football circuit, with it's false idols and bright and eluring showmanship. Semi naked ladies dancing at the side of the pitch.

Apart from that the fact it went to court for something in 2004.... 4 years ago. That sums up how much hope there is for america.

I complained too

The clip wasn't long enough and pausing the video for too long while I studied the issue at hand burned in my plasma... there should be a law against this

heheh

*loves all the outrage over the outrage*

Breast feeding

I think a fine like that proofs once and for all that not breastfeeding harms your child in more ways then you can imagine

Ah! remember it well.

There was indeed a complete tit in shot. It was for waaay longer than 9/16ths of a second and nothing to do with Janet Jackson though.

Until I saw this, I was living with the illusion that "a pair of Timberlakes" was something to do with hiking boots. You live and learn.

Darwin wins

.2 % of a country's population signing such nonsense is a lot !

But, looking at the positive angle, if they are so shocked at something that used to be present (and permanent) even on some country money bills (100 french francs), there's actually not any chance they'll give birth during their life time.

So, Darwin wins, and this country's people will actually be better.

PH icon, for trivial reasons ...

Why just one?

Pity she didnt flash both of them. Then I could have posted something about a another daft prosecution going tits up.

Ok, Ok, I'm on me way.

Class Act ???

Would the original incident be classified as a "cock up"?

Cum again

Perhaps the real problem was not the tit per se, but that it was black?

@AC

Of course it wasn't a "malfunction."

I think the reason that it ended up being such a big deal was partly because people (meaning the FCC) felt insulted when they were asked to believe it was all an accident. The "wardrobe malfunction" statement was what enraged the public and the FCC. And this is of course why the decision was overturned--the punishment didn't match the actual crime.

I recall a lawsuit many years back where a woman subverted the non-spill lid of a coffee cup at a drive-through window, decanted the coffee onto her lap, and then turned around and sued McDonald's because--gasp--the coffee was hot and burned her. McDonald's was fined a huge sum (later greatly reduced) by the jury not because the woman's case was so strong, but because the McDonald's law team was so insulting and abrasive.

If Jackson and Timberlake had just come clean and admitted that they thought it wouldn't be a big deal, and they thought the nipple shield was going to be enough, it would have all blown over. But they had to be dicks about the whole thing.

Prudery

Recommended reading:

"Mrs Grundy: Studies in English Prudery" by Peter Fryer, publ. Dobson Books, London, 1963.

[Over 300 used copies via bookfinder.com]

Nine Sixteenths of a second !

How do you make it last that long ?

@ Bucky

"I recall a lawsuit many years back where a woman subverted the non-spill lid of a coffee cup at a drive-through window, decanted the coffee onto her lap, and then turned around and sued McDonald's because--gasp--the coffee was hot and burned her."

http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

And don't go all Ted Frank on us...