Even conservatives file frivolous lawsuits...

[melon]

Woman sues over Janet Jackson's breast
Reuters
Fri Feb 6, 1:28 PM ET

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A Tennessee woman has filed a class action suit against Janet Jackson and others involved in her breast-baring Super Bowl halftime show, saying millions of people are owed monetary damages for exposure to lewd conduct.

The suit, filed earlier this week in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee, also names pop star Justin Timberlake, who performed with Jackson, CBS Broadcasting, show producer MTV Networks Enterprises, and the parent of those two companies, Viacom.

The action seeks a court order to prevent anything like last Sunday's stunt from being repeated on U.S. network television prior to 10 p.m. local time when children might be watching.

No dollar figure for damages is mentioned in the suit, but it estimates that over 80 million U.S. viewers might be due compensation. CBS has said the game drew an average viewership of just under 89.6 million people. Advertising during the game sold for more than $2 million (1.1 million pounds) a spot.

The suit states that the ultimate compensatory damage figure, should a jury decide to grant damages, should be no higher than what the parties being sued made out of participating in and airing the Super Bowl and its halftime show.

If additional punitive damages are granted, it adds, they should be no higher than the "gross annual revenues of each defendant for the last three years..."

Those figures would probably run into the billions of dollars, according to the Smoking Gun, a Web site that first published the court papers.

During the halftime show Timberlake tore off half of Jackson's black leather bustier, exposing her right breast, while the two were singing a duet.

Jackson took the blame but said "it was not my intention that it go as far as it did."

CBS has already said it would use an "enhanced delay" on its February 8 broadcast of music's Grammy Awards so it can censor both audio and video as needed, and ABC also said it will use a delay on its February 29 broadcast of the Academy Awards.

The suit says the defendants knew the broadcast would be watched by millions of families with children but they "included in the halftime show sexually explicit acts solely designed to garner publicity and ultimately to increase profits for themselves. The suit mentions the breast exposure but also says the show in general contained "other lewd and sexually explicit conduct."

The law firm handling the suit issued a statement on Friday saying that neither the woman who filed it, Terri Carlin, nor her attorney, Wayne Ritchie, would comment. "The issue here is accountability and not more publicity," it said.

I hope no children ever see their mothers in the shower. If a split second of Janet Jackson's breast causes children to explode, then I'd hate to see what several minutes of two breasts might do! The horror!

Chances are, no children even care, and probably didn't notice. And, if they did, they are probably old enough to know what a breast looks like. Common sense, people!

Melon

 

[verte76]

Yeah. No word on how many kids have seen mine in the dressing room at the pool. This is complete madness.

 

[BAW]

The phrase "get a life" doesn't even begin to describe what I'd like to say to this idiot and the lawyers willing to file this case.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I am still laughing over the fact that my housemate and I watched every second of the halftime show and did not even notice the breast!

I cannot even begin to understand the hysteria surrounding this incident. Who can I sue over the trauma of seeing planes crash into the WTC and bodies flailing from the 64th floor, over and over and over again?

 

[nbcrusader]

No one wants to let the liberal trial lawyers have all the fun


Stupid uses of judicial system

 

[Dreadsox]

See....its called an freaking channel changer.

I had six children here ranging in ages from 3-9 watching the Super Bowl. Less than a minute into the show, I felt it was already inappropriate for the kids. I freaking changed the channel and missed it.

Now I was proud of my judgement as a father and godparent.

But dang it all....I missed the excitement of it.

I had to google just to see what the excitement was all about. After googling....well.....



Anyways...my kids would not have cared...Richard Hatch is our Hero in this house....Go Rudy.

There were commercials that were worse than the breast.

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

One thing.....How doe you know this person is conservative? Just curious....I see nowhere where she claims to be republican or conservative.

 

[joyfulgirl]

There goes Dread making sense again.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

See....its called an freaking channel changer.

Not in my country it's not.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Ok, so he didn't make all that much sense...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

No suprise there then. (I'm kidding, dread, no offence intended )

 

[U2Bama]

I agree that the lawsuit is frivolous, absurd and silly.

I'm curious though: why is it so important to show nudity at a sporting event that is broadcast on network television during primetime hours? Of course, I am going on the possibility that the nudity was intentional.

I go to about 8-10 college football games and several basketball games each year, and watch many more on television, and I have never felt that I am missing out on nudity during the halftime show.

The closest I have seen was when an Alabama majorette's shoe flew off while she was doing a high-stepping dance routine; she was left dancing in one shoe and one stocking-foot, but that is still legal and decent as far as I know.

~U2Alabama

 

[U2Bama]

Duplicity.

~U2Alabama

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

...

I hope no children ever see their mothers in the shower. If a split second of Janet Jackson's breast causes children to explode, then I'd hate to see what several minutes of two breasts might do! The horror!

LOL, exactly.

Originally posted by melon
Chances are, no children even care, and probably didn't notice. And, if they did, they are probably old enough to know what a breast looks like. Common sense, people!

Melon

Yep. Like I said, all the kids I've talked to about it don't understand what the big deal is and just want everyone to quit making a big thing out of it, and I can't say I disagree. I didn't see the actual event and wouldn't have known what happened if it didn't get all blown out of proportion.

I hope to god this lawsuit gets thrown out of court. I hope the judge laughs their head off at it. This is so moronic...what in the world is happening to make people so stupid?

Originally posted by Dreadsox
See....its called an freaking channel changer.

. Thank you.

Angela

 

[Liesje]

um, if moms are so concerned about what their kids see on TV, why let them watch the halftime show in the first place? I mean, come ON! Justin, Janet, Jessica, Kid Rock....what did they expect? Let the kids watch a Disney sing-along video and put them to bed on time.

I'd still love to see MTV and/or Viacom sued just because

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

um, if moms are so concerned about what their kids see on TV, why let them watch the halftime show in the first place? I mean, come ON! Justin, Janet, Jessica, Kid Rock....what did they expect? Let the kids watch a Disney sing-along video and put them to bed on time.

Exactly! The Super Bowl has never claimed to be an innocent, harmless event. Why people are acting like it claimed to be otherwise is beyond me.

Angela

 

[verte76]

Exactly! The Super Bowl has never claimed to be an innocent, harmless event. Why people are acting like it claimed to be otherwise is beyond me.

Angela

I agree. Good grief, some of their advertising was from a beer company, and the company that makes Viagra..........certainly people should understand this isn't exactly Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I think the head of the FCC is making a klutz out of himself, too. There's alot of inconsistency here.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I agree. Good grief, some of their advertising was from a beer company, and the company that makes Viagra..........certainly people should understand this isn't exactly Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I think the head of the FCC is making a klutz out of himself, too. There's alot of inconsistency here.

.

Angela

 

[Dreadsox]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how it has been concluded that this woman is conservative?

 

[nbcrusader]

um, if moms are so concerned about what their kids see on TV, why let them watch the halftime show in the first place? I mean, come ON! Justin, Janet, Jessica, Kid Rock....what did they expect? Let the kids watch a Disney sing-along video and put them to bed on time.

Parents are not expecting Disney with NFL football. My 9-year old son loves football. When he watches the NFL, however, we require that he keep the remote close by for commercial breaks. The commercials are just as "soft porn" as the Superbowl Halftime Show.

It is getting harder and harder as a parent to filter out the crap, especially when the sophmoric mantra of "its only a......." turns a blind eye to the images children are subjected to each week.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

What exactly is it about the commercials that you find so bad, though? They're advertising things that people in everyday life will have to encounter at some point and time. Whether it's some commercial on TV, or a swear word uttered in the school halls (or, in some cases, in the homes, by the parents themselves), or a scene in a book, or whatever, kids will find out about it sooner or later. Why would you want to filter it out instead of just confront it head on?

Angela

 

[melon]

kids will find out about it sooner or later. Why would you want to filter it out instead of just confront it head on?

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

What exactly is it about the commercials that you find so bad, though? They're advertising things that people in everyday life will have to encounter at some point and time. Whether it's some commercial on TV, or a swear word uttered in the school halls (or, in some cases, in the homes, by the parents themselves), or a scene in a book, or whatever, kids will find out about it sooner or later. Why would you want to filter it out instead of just confront it head on?

Angela

I guess you haven't been watching TV much lately. Especially commercials for other television programs or movies. It is not about everyday life. Should 9 years olds wrestle with issues of infidelity, seduction, etc.?

If some think this is living life in a bubble, go try raising children and then come talk to me.

 

[verte76]

The only time I ever watch television is for figure skating competitions. Their advertising is aimed at women, since most figure skating fans are female. They show pretty safe advertising--insurance, especially State Farm, which sponsors the U.S. Figure Skating Championships, cars, electronic devices, nothing terribly controversial. If I had a kid who loved football, I'd get headaches too. Why should nine year olds have to watch Viagra ads?

 

[Liesje]

Why should nine year olds have to watch Viagra ads?

I think the problem lies with people's expectations. Superbowl = football = millions of male viewers = some people with erectile dysfunction. Personally, I don't mind Viagra ads at all b/c they advertise a useful, legitimate product. You'd never see a Viagra ad run during the morning cartoons anyway. I think the nature of football itself is far more offensive than a Viagra ad (sex life = good; cursing, fighting, crushing people, being paid millions while billions of people are hungry = pathetic, IMO). Besides, the Viagra ads I've seen are kinda funny, and they're not at all sexually gratuitous.

Basically, if moms were worried about the content run during the Superbowl, then have the kids watch something else, or channel change like nb said. The companies that can afford to advertise during the show and the companies we'd prefer to advertise during the show are not the same companies. We can't have our cake and eat it to. If we're going to watch something as American as the Superbowl, then we should only expect to see a truly American, truly trashy, tasteless halftime act and commercials.



Now I'm in a ranting mood!

Pro sports
American pop artists
MTV

 

[BAW]

What exactly is it about the commercials that you find so bad, though? They're advertising things that people in everyday life will have to encounter at some point and time. Whether it's some commercial on TV, or a swear word uttered in the school halls (or, in some cases, in the homes, by the parents themselves), or a scene in a book, or whatever, kids will find out about it sooner or later. Why would you want to filter it out instead of just confront it head on?

Angela

I don't know how you would explain an ad for Celstia (sp?) that gives the disclaimer "erections of 4 hours or more may occur"

Seriously...I'm pretty liberal but come on. I' rather explain Janet's boob than that!

 

[maude]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how it has been concluded that this woman is conservative?

Yes.....I'm still perplexed by melon's polarizing political refrences when it comes to unnecessary lawsuits. Personally, I've never heard anyone say that only liberals make unnecessary lawsuits. Has anyone on this forum made that sort of statement? I haven't read here regularly so that may be why I am not understanding the reference or "joke" if that is what it is.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I guess you haven't been watching TV much lately. Especially commercials for other television programs or movies. It is not about everyday life. Should 9 years olds wrestle with issues of infidelity, seduction, etc.?

Well, kids are going to have to understand what all that stuff is eventually, because a lot of kids' parents struggle with those very issues themselves nowadays, sadly. Infidelity and seduction are a part of life. There's kids that see it in their own homes each day.

As for the Viagra thing and things along that line...if kids don't hear about it from their parents, they'll hear about it from other kids at school, or even their older brothers and sisters (and I'm talking about the teenagers), when they make jokes about it or whatever. Or they'll hear it from their parents, but it'll be accidental, when the parents discussing it at a time when they don't think their children are within listening range. Also, what if those children happen to notice or hear discussion about their own grandpa taking Viagra? What then?

All this stuff kids see on TV happens in their own homes, in their own towns, to people they know in everyday life. That's a much bigger influence than what they see on a television screen.

Kids are naturally curious, and they'll eventually find out about these sorts of things anyway, so hiding certain things from them just seems kinda pointless to me. Explaining certain topics to them may be hard, yes, but kids deserve to have their questions answered.

Angela

 

[Dreadsox]

"erections of 4 hours or more may occur"

Oh Honey!!!!!!! Mr. happy is still waiting...

Damn 4 hours....it sounds like work? 1/2 day at the office. I would have to be badck in boot camp shape for 4 hour hours or rolling in the hay.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I might be mistaken, but melon's polarising could have been tongue in cheek...melon is well aware of the risks lumping people together...right melon?



I want to sue someone for the agony of watching this whole incident become a debacle. Who cares 2 tosses about bare boobies? Viagra ads? Etc? (I ran out of examples ) Who really cares about Janet's boob? I understand parenting issues and wanting to shield and monitor what your child is exposed to, but what is the earth shattering damage to a 9 year old's (for example) eyes at seeing a bare breast? I'd think by age 9 everyone has seen a naked breast. It is not new, nor upsetting to most kids. Its something to giggle at "hihihi look, her boobie is showing!" Kids have short attention spans too. Any child who has remembered it is most likely done so because of the constant attention.
As for an adult, this woman...Sheesus. If she has not seen a bare breast by now...God help her. If it offends her...I wonder how she showers every morning

As for viagra etc...Eventually any parent will need to explain some rudimentary 'adult issues'. Unfortunately for most parents, what piques a child's attention can be most often unforseen whether it is on a Superbowl ad or on a passing bus's side billboard. It is always the parent's choice and right to choose how and when, but nearly impossible to shield every possible opportunity for unecessary exposure. Better to accept it and pre-plan a way of dealing with it, than freak out when unprepared, no?

 

[Dreadsox]

I love it when Angela says Boobie!

As for tongue in cheek.....I hope the same response is afforded the conservatives of this forum. I do recall recently watching one of the most polite posters in here get FLAMED for "lumping" a group of people together. But, I digress.....I would hate to have someone accuse me of whining or trying to derail the thread.

Back to the 4 hour thing...still trying to figure out if that is good or bad. I suppose it is good if there is a boobie around....