Janet Jackson Super Bowl 'Wardrobe Malfunction': White House Asks Supreme Court To Reassess FCC Fine

Janet's Jackson's infamous 2004 'wardrobe malfunction' may be coming under scrutiny again.

The White House has asked the United States Supreme Court to review the Federal Communications Commission's decision to fine CBS $550,000 for airing a split-second shot of Jackson’s breast during the 2004 Super Bowl.

As Politico reports, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. is arguing that the $550,000 fine was warranted "because the indecency rules cover 'fleeting nudity.'"

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia had earlier thrown out the fine against CBS as "arbitrary."

Comments

[Emmanuel Burnell]

04:46 PM on 07/18/2012

Janet did let Timber Lake take her bra off, so she did plan it.

[Brannon Smith]

05:35 PM on 04/20/2012

I was a junior in high school when this happened. I'm 25 now, have graduated college and am working full-time. That should let you know how old this story is. No one cares anymore. Really.

[Covergirlnay]

06:47 PM on 04/21/2012

Our stories are identical minus the working full-time part Lol. That really should show them how old this is. They must be really bored.

[Onyxist]

10:10 AM on 04/20/2012

justin timberland snatched her clothes off then everyone blamed the blackgirl.. fyi- he's a coward for letting her take all the blame.. sneaky little devil..

[rhuffie]

06:40 PM on 04/19/2012

We are such prudes...this incident was only visible if you captured it and played it back slo-mo:
"Wait...in a second...there it was...was that it?....no...rewind....wait...here it comes...O NO!!! I am so sickened by this! What is this country coming to?

[cgert88888]

10:43 PM on 04/19/2012

Prudes we are but I think this was more of the FCC sending a message to "hollywood" that it wasn't going to tolerate any "one-upmanship" on the boob flashing thing.

[thatflydudeinnyc]

02:57 PM on 04/19/2012

Let it go people make mistakes whatever happen happened only the father knows leave it at that this topic is disposable .

[Howard Chrastil]

02:01 PM on 04/19/2012

hey get off of Janet,l seen the half time show and it happen so fast,didnt see any thing any way.here the goverment wasting our money again.l hope they lose

[nole777]

01:58 PM on 04/19/2012

Why is the WH getting involved in this? Don't they have anything else to do?

[AgainstAnimalAbuse]

02:30 PM on 04/19/2012

Obviously not!

[cvnchichay]

01:34 PM on 04/19/2012

Nothing to do with the supposed War on Women. One of the mainstream media is calling in its chips.

[psnyder325]

01:28 PM on 04/19/2012

In most countries in Europe (and in Japan) nudity is not met with sophomoric giggles or Puritan over-reaction. It's a BODY people. Get over it! $55K for an accident is absurd and SHOULD be thrown out. At one point it was illegal to show a female naval. Americans are SUCH prudes and SO sex-obsessed.

[Black4u]

07:48 PM on 04/19/2012

I agree with you.....Drama for no freakin reason at all.....

[Hank10303]

12:29 PM on 04/19/2012

"War on Women" Part II - why is a women's breast in public indecent? Because dirty and immature men get lustful thoughts if they are seen? Maybe some other women might be envious? This institutionalized ban on the female breast, even when a mother is breast feeding says more about the immaturity of men than the women those men would like to control. A half million dollar fine for a 3 second visual of one of America’s sexiest women is actually an insult to all women and a dummying down or suppression of any attempt at maturing our national culture. The fact is most of us have sex, all of us have sexual body parts – is or should that be a surprise to any human being or a source of embarrassment? Granted for the reasons mentioned above a ban on intentional nudity may be reasonable due to no fault of women; but for an unplanned occurrence of mere seconds…. Shouldn’t the FCC be addressing more serious concerns; like the provocative rhetoric of the Beck’s and Rush’s of lies. I’m aware the FCC has no control over blatant lies/misinformation. Can one think of a better reason to lobby congress for that right. One may have the freedom of speech right to tell whatever lies they so deem necessary but it should be disguised as real news. If it’s not based on facts, it’s its fantasy fiction.

[janetx11]

12:43 PM on 04/19/2012

Evidently you you did not have to sit a 7 year old daughter down after the incident and explain why it's not a good thing to sell sex with your body.

[raine221]

01:06 PM on 04/19/2012

The incedent had nothing to do wit selling sex. Why would you even feel an need to mention sex over a quick peek, which most people had to rewind to notice. When it happened did your daughter ask why there was a nipple on the screen?
If people were not so prudish these things would pass by kids with little notice.

[Hank10303]

01:08 PM on 04/19/2012

Human sexuality is a part of life whether one is comfortable with it or not. Not preparing a child for future life experiences is not protecting them and most certainly doesn’t help them. Perpetuating hypocrisy only makes educating them on the more serious topics of life harder. In addition, wouldn't it be better to have the discussions about life, sex and the human body with you than in the school yard. I raised my children that way and instead of listening to the kids that were pretending to know about sex, love and life - they were the ones that told others they were wrong. Knowledge is power; ignorance is weakness.

[KMoore4318]

01:30 PM on 04/19/2012

I have to agree with you, I have been to other countries where it is not uncommon for a woman to whip it out and Brest feed on the beach, in public, or even standing in line at the bank. Besides 80% of them are not worth looking at, the vast majority hideous, men don't get excited when they see a cow, so why should a Brest be any difference. I even suspect the reason most men don't want this in the US, is because most US woman, have gorged themselves on fast food, so much, that public display , could lead to mass vomiting.

[orkt]

12:07 PM on 04/19/2012

Full Titties on TV and No Personhood for Corporations! That is my agenda for the Supreme Court.

[BlamBlam]

12:03 PM on 04/19/2012

So if it was a "Malfunction", did we ever find out how it was supposed to "Function"? I think a demonstration is in order LOL! Course its been 8 years mebbe not.

[cempiremtn]

11:58 AM on 04/19/2012

"Hard pivot to jobs,Jobs,Jobs,Jobs..." BO.

[galvestonguy68]

11:53 AM on 04/19/2012

The issue isn't about the 'malfunction' but the ability of federal agencies to assess fines.
If federal agencies can't assess the fines they are tasked with assessing under various laws and regulations then there is no way to enforce regulations.

[psnyder325]

01:30 PM on 04/19/2012

Federal agencies shouldn't be able to assess ARBITRARY or ABSURD fines. This fine fell under both.

[galvestonguy68]

01:37 PM on 04/19/2012

The rule that the fine was issued under is very clear. Nudity and profanity during prime time when young children are likely to be watching is not allowed, and stations are required to prevent 'accidentally' airing such material. That is neither arbitrary nor absurd.

[Hansy Peguero]

06:30 PM on 04/19/2012

This might has been the only smart comment in the whole thread.

[Sharon Moeller]

11:46 AM on 04/19/2012

Is this REALLY best use of our Supreme Court's time? How about we have them reassess Citizen's United instead?

[nole777]

02:02 PM on 04/19/2012

Just can't let that go, can you. Their busy with that other piece of garbage, Obama care.

[rhuffie]

06:37 PM on 04/19/2012

Yea, garbage, trying to get health coverage for 40 MILLION Americans.

[Sharon Moeller]

11:11 PM on 04/19/2012

Let it go, so you feel okay with corporations buy our elections? I certainly don't. Now tell me, without the standard GOP talking points, what is it you don't like about Obama Care? Specifically, what is it that's so bad? Is it health coverage for everyone? You ask at whose expense. You realize that when uninsured people need healthcare it's the emergency room they go to. They are substantially sicker than they would have been had they had the preventative care that insurance often covers. So how much are we taxpayers paying then? So again, tell me specifically what's so bad about it. I personally think allowing the Koch brothers buying our elections is far worse. Herman Cain? Really?