Janet sued for breast-baring Superbowl

The Times of India ^ | 07 February 2004 | PTI

[MegaSilver]

WASHINGTON: A Tennessee woman has sued singer Janet Jackson and others involved in her breast-baring Superbowl half-time show, saying that millions of people are owed monetary damages for exposure to lewd conduct.

The suit, filed in Federal Court in Knoxville, Tennessee, also names pop star Justin Timberlake, who, after a suggestive song, tore a piece of Jackson's clothing, exposing her right breast; CBS Broadcasting Inc, which aired the show; MTV Networks Enterprises, which produced it; and the parent of the two companies, Viacom Inc.

The action seeks a court order to prevent anything like last Sunday's stunt from being repeated on network TV prior to 10 pm, when children might be watching.

It also asks the court to declare the matter a class action for purposes of damages.

No dollar figure is mentioned in the suit but it estimates that more than 80 million US viewers might be due compensation.

CBS has said that the game had an average viewership of just under 89.6 million people.

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

Media observers have pointed out that there is much more exposure on several TV shows every day and every night but Superbowl is regarded as a superclean show -- except for the injuries many players suffer as they tackle each other to floor them or snatch the ball from them.

[MegaSilver]

This is getting ridiculous.

[steplock]

I want in on the Law Suit!

I might as well get some of this money the Politicians - Lawyers and Judges get with every slither down into the pits of depravity.

.

[Lady Jag]

Whoops!   Wrong Janet

[festus]

Thank heavens none of THAT fell out.............

We'd all be blind.........

[Lazamataz]

I, too, was horribly scarred by this event.

Where's my check?

[expatguy]

Is it?

The people that think this is a joke are perhaps the first people who would be calling a lawyer if they opened a can of 'pork and beans' and found a dead mouse in it or perhaps they found a condom in their soup.

Why should "Ms. Janet Jackson Inc." be any less liable than "SomeBigEvilCorporation"?

You can sit back and laugh at someone's "severe emotional distress" and call her lawsuit "frivolous", but I can assure you that the lawyers at Viacom Corporation are not laughing.

[Always Right]

Janet the Bare-Breast Jackson
(Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer melody)


You know Micheal and Marlon and Jacko and Tito
Randy and Jermaine and Rebbie and LaToya
But do you recall the most famous Jackson of all
Janet the Bare-Breast Jackson, had a very shiney nipple
And finally when she beared it, you would even see it’s pierced
But Janet’s father Joseph, use to scream and steal her Toys
He never let poor Janet, sing with all the Jackson Boys.


Then one foggy super bowl day, MTV came to say
Janet with your breasts so big, won’t you play our half-time gig
Then how the tabloids loved her, and they shouted out with glee
Janet the Bare-breast Jackson, your career is history

[danamco]

This is getting ridiculous.


W H Y ? ? ?

[Paul Atreides]

Really? I find it all very titillating.

[Tennessee_Bob]

You and I haven't talked very much in the past, but I'm beginning to think of you as a bosom buddy...

[joan_30]

hahahhaahhahahha That is a classic reright to the Rudolph Red Nose Reindeer .. I am saving this to use this Christmas Tnx

[who knows what evil?]

Agreed. A number of churches in Tennessee (and elsewhere) rented big-screen televisions for in-house 'Super Bowl' parties. Wonder if this woman was one of the "horrified" parishoners? G-d works in mysterious ways, doesn't He?

[MegaSilver]

The people that think this is a joke are perhaps the first people who would be calling a lawyer if they opened a can of 'pork and beans' and found a dead mouse in it or perhaps they found a condom in their soup.

I don't approve of what Ms. Jackson did, but suing her? It seems a bit hasty to me. At this point, the answer to the question, "Where do we lay the blame?" is still pretty ambiguous.

All right. Clearly, Jackson is at fault; I can't really argue that point. But is she alone in this? Timberlake's claims of a "wardrobe malfunction" and no prior knowledge are suspicious at best, and given the sexual antics of the entire performance, Viacom can't be ruled out as a potential culprit, either.

Why should "Ms. Janet Jackson Inc." be any less liable than "SomeBigEvilCorporation"?

She shouldn't. I'm just not sure how much good it will do to sue her, and I am sure that there are plenty of people who could care less who will jump on the bandwagon of such a suit just to get a quick buck.

You can sit back and laugh at someone's "severe emotional distress" and call her lawsuit "frivolous", but I can assure you that the lawyers at Viacom Corporation are not laughing.

Good point.

[McGavin999]

Gotta love it when liberal tactics are turned back on the liberals.

I'm all for a class action lawsuit against Jackson/ whats-his-name, CBS, MTV, Viacom and the NFL.

Maybe if this is done some of them will think a bit before they pollute the public airways with the kind of drek that's being put out.

They keep telling us we control the on/off switch. That's true, but now we've noticed that there is nothing decent left to watch. That means that the public airways actually are being used AGAINST the people. The whole reason for "Pay TV" was to air programs that weren't fit for everyday American audiences. That has spread to the networks now. Either the networks change back or do away with "Pay TV".

[danamco]

The one and only way that you can stop these holly-wood clones showing their sleazy programs to us, and I believe the majority of people with family values are opposed to that, is to hit them and the "dims" smack right in their own pocket books!

That doesn't mean that you're censoring or limiting free speech, etc.

By the way that's the tactics the libs are using daily to silence the conservative movements, including Rush/Hannity/Bortz, etc.

[Condor51]

Ridiculous?
I don't think so.

Since the display of that 'breast', I have been scared for life. I can no longer look at a woman's breast in fear that it will look like Janet's! It has ruined my, ahhh... marital relations and I now demand that my wife wear a trench-coat at all times.
I'm suing for 698 GAZILLION DOLLARS!
/sarcasm

[Arpege92]

"This is getting ridiculous."

I agree....although I do think that everyone involved in this vulgar display of so called art should be hit in the pocketbook. Nothing gets a persons attention quicker than having to dish out loads of their own money due to their own stupidity. I say fine them....but lawsuits from those who saw this....a little too far for my taste.

[MegaSilver]

The one and only way that you can stop these holly-wood clones showing their sleazy programs to us, and I believe the majority of people with family values are opposed to that, is to hit them and the "dims" smack right in their own pocket books!

That doesn't mean that you're censoring or limiting free speech, etc.

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to bankrupt these subversive nutbags.

I just question the effectiveness and appropriateness of a lawsuit.

By the way that's the tactics the libs are using daily to silence the conservative movements, including Rush/Hannity/Bortz, etc.

Except, thankfully, it's not working, because libs have nothing to go on.

[Capriole]

What slays me is when all of these people call in to talk shows and claim that their teenage daughters "felt assaulted" and "were shocked" by the sight of this breast. Excuse me? These are GIRLS. If they haven't seen breasts before they'd better get used to the sight, because they're going to be seeing their own, and probably their friends' breasts in the locker room. If my own 15-year-old daughter was shocked I'd check to see if she had stuck her finger in the electrical outlet.