It was the most infamous Super Bowl halftime show in history: In 2004, pop stars Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, bumping and grinding their way through a racy routine, had a raunchy finale planned, which they rehearsed two days before. In front of 90 million viewers, including many children, Timberlake yanked off a section of Jackson’s shirt, exposing her right breast.
The nudity angered many viewers, and gave the world a cynical new term: “wardrobe malfunction.” Jackson’s wardrobe is not the only thing that malfunctioned; so did the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Last Monday the court threw out a $550,000 fine the Federal Communications Commission assessed against CBS. The three-judge panel ruled that the FCC fine was “arbitrary” and “capricious.” Apparently, exposing oneself no longer qualifies as broadcast indecency.
Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council, got it right when he said the court’s decision “goes beyond judicial activism; it borders on judicial stupidity . . . If a striptease during the Super Bowl in front of 90 million people—including millions of children—doesn’t fit the parameters of broadcast indecency, then what does?” Good question.
While many Americans are angry at the court, they ought to understand this story is not just about activist judges second guessing the FCC: It is also about a willingness to corrupt. It is not enough, it seems, to make strippers available to those who seek them out in seedy clubs. It is about a desire to expose everyone to filth, whether they want to be exposed to it or not—even innocent children.
In this case, pop performers considered shocking adults and corrupting kids an acceptable price to pay for the publicity and career enhancement. And, indeed, if it did not enhance their careers, it must have amused them to force vulgarity before millions of innocent eyes.
The Super Bowl incident generated more than half a million complaints to the FCC—complaints the Third Circuit Court ignored. But there is a remedy if we act now. If you disagree with the court’s decision, here is what I would like you to do right away.
First, call Senator Harry Reid and ask him to schedule a vote now on Senate Bill 1780, the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act. It would cover instances of “fleeting nudity” like the one that so disgusted Super Bowl fans, and caused the Muslim world to mock Western decadence. Then call Senator Jay Rockefeller. He authored the bill, but has showed no willingness to move it. Third, call your own two senators and ask them not only to support the bill, but to urge Senators Reid and Rockefeller to move the bill. It has been passed out of committee; they could vote on it today if they wanted to! We need to let senators know that lip service to traditional values is not enough. Lastly, email FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, and thank him for his strong stand; urge him to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Be sure to visit our website, BreakPoint.org, for phone numbers and for more information on Senate Bill 1780.
Congress is only in session a short time between now and the November elections, so please do this quickly. We have not only a right, but a duty to protect ourselves and our kids from this kind of corruption.
From BreakPoint®, July 28, 2008, Copyright 2008, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
RSS
The issue is there are rules about what can be broadcasted. It's like PG vs R rated. The Superbowl is rated PG (violence...duh!) not R. Therefore, parents who have the right to and do not want their children to see that sort of thing would allow their children to watch.
The issue is if the rating rules were broken. Why isn't the ACLU going after network? Oh, that's right...their too busy making sure Christian stations have every comma and period in place.
Oh, please!!!!
Gee, is a little tittie on TV going to cripple people? Grow up.
Spin spin spin.
Legally the FCC cannot fine CBS. There was no specific rule banning brief nudity on basic cable, the FCC have let less famous slips slide for decades, and they didn't use any guidelines for the amount of the fine. It was truly arbitrary and inconsistent.
Judges must decide the legal merits of each specific case. How is that "activism?"
CBS can't be fined for the 2004 Superbowl incident.
Now lets get a law banning nudity on basic cable clearly and quickly, with guidelines for fines and punishment, so that it never happens again, or if it does there will be an actual legal justification for a huge fine.
I honestly cringed at this story. I remember in my Pre-Modern British History class in college, women revealing their legs or even elements of their collarbone and chest was so vulgar to some elite and older gentleman that women were seriously condemned. They were dragged to church by their husbands and fathers, socially scarred and label hideous names. Times are changing, wake up.
I think this is important and am glad to be informed. I'll be following up calling my senators.
I appreciate Chuck Colson, in a way. He just always seems so deadly dull to me. Never a column of any real interest, I think.....
Wow. What's your issue? We're lucky to have a guy like Charles Colson in our ranks.
At risk of being criticized for 3 posts, I will say that I could take my own advice. I could NOT READ Chuck Colson's columns. But I am drawn like a moth to a flame. I just HAVE TO LOOK to see if his next column is as dull as his last one. I am rarely "disappointed."
This man, I think, is the quintessential, dull American.
Get a life, Chuck. We turned off our TV years ago.