I like your take, Tracy.

Like, my innocence needs protecting...?

There are boobs involved in this decision-making, all right.

I watch Cable TV. I listen to satellite radio. And...how shall I put this...I don't have a V-Chip on my internet browser. Sometimes the content I come across in each of these media is too much even for me, which is when I simply TURN IT OFF.

It would seem positively quaint to be living in a world where huge fines are levied for the mere fleeting partial display of a breast if the threat to free speach weren't so scary. I think it's time to move on.

I agree that the whole thing is ridiculous. Even what the FCC is considering is way off point. What is wrong with a breast, or even with shock? (Let alone the "F word," which in my circles is no more remarkable than the word "the.") What I'm worried about is that it's just one more instance of pandering to male viewers by making objects of women's bodies.

Prosecuting torture or prosecuting an exposed nipple?

Why is it that normal consensual sex between adults tends to give a film adult ratings. Good grief, an erect penis is almost certainly an NC-17 or X.

But violence. That's just fine.

What parent wants their kids to grow up and incorporate extreme violence into their normal lives?

What parent wants their kids to grow up and incorporate an erect penis into their normal lives?

Ick. Phrased that way maybe I understand the MPAA. As a parent of two gradeschool girls that creeps me out.

But take a breath. 20yrs from now, I very much hope that both of my girls have an active sex life with someone that loves them. And due to human anatomy, it's pretty likely (~90% chance) that it will involve an erect penis.

On the other hand, hopefully neither will ever directly experience violence at a level commonly seen in PG-13 movies.

Just very odd how our culture embraces violence and hates normal sexual activity. Very odd.

PS. They both started seeing boobs less than a minute after they were born, so again, reaction to the boob shot is strange.

Somedays you gotta just be embarrassed for your species. Murder, disease, economic mayhem, and the highest court in the land weighs in on the unsightliness of nipples.

I've said it before. But the next 20+ years of conservative Supreme Court decisions will be George Bush's final F-U to the country.

Free speech we be among the early casaulties. Don't be surprised if variations of on-line censorship start popping up again. A Dem congress is just as vulnerable to the 'protect the children' crowd as the Republicans.

...love waterboarding.

This ilk wails over the fleeting glimpse of a female nipple yet somehow can embrace torture with a fevered sadism.

This has to be a disease.

career has taken a nosedive.

If I recall correctly, right after this innocent slip, Miz Jackson tried to pin the blame onto her male singing partner, a Mr. Timberlake.

SO, not only was THAT canard swiftly discarded, that somehow JT was guilty for this faux pas, but as JJ is raked over more and more coals, people's opinion of her keeps on falling.

Timberboy keeps growing in popularity, Mizz Blame the Guy's career is going into the dumper.

Let THAT be a lesson to women who want to walk away from problems they cause by blaming the men.

Doesn't the Supreme Court have more important things to worry about?

I'm sure that certain Justices of the Supreme Court are giving very black looks to certain other Justices of the Supreme Court over this. While it may indeed be folded into the whole issue of what the FCC can and cannot fine in terms of that agency's definition(s) of decency on the airwaves, the clear imbecility of it cannot be masked by such a maneuver. The Highest Court in the Land must be able to discern the difference between what is worthy of its consideration and what is just abysmally stupid. So far that ability is not manifesting itself.

Honestly?

It was a flash of a breast. A breast. So what! There is nothing harmful about it.

Only in America, where our entertainment media is choked with blood and violence and killing, would we find fault in something completely natural and harmless.

We need to get over this self-loathing Puritanical streak that has been strangling us for centuries. It's making us look like total jackasses to the rest of the developed world.

And in principle, the whole thing was just a tasteless example of pandering to sexism. But the intention of the act by two questionable performers was not what the Supreme Court was asked to judge upon. They were asked to judge on the basic exposure of flesh.

And in that, I believe they were backwards. Much as I might want to slap Janet Jackson silly for demeaning herself, her simple exposure of flesh wasn't actionable in my view.

We forbade smoking. Why? Because we didn't want kids to see it as cool. Allow swears and suddenly they'll be the ticket to cool on TV, and then be heard from the mouths of 4 year olds.

Okay, so it's not the worst thing to face the nation, but why do it? Everyone can easily live without ever saying a swear. After a while, Oh, Shoot!! comes out with the same force the other word used to.

Much as I might want to slap Janet Jackson silly for demeaning herself, her simple exposure of flesh wasn't actionable in my view.

-- tomreedtoon

Forget Janet- a woman shows her nipple and she demeans herself?!!

What the fuck chapter of the King James bible did you crawl from?

And why? Just because his hand went and yanked the fabric?!?!? Didn't these people see the gun in her other hand pointed at his head?

You know, I've always wondered if the weird fact that Janet was GUILTY and Justin was INNOCENT in all of this sillyness was more racist or sexist. Now that our very own sage Bullshit 2 - the Regurgitation has weighed in I guess I can settle on "sexist". It's nice to have closure.