To: Constructionist
Is it legally indecent exposure, since she had that thingy stuck on there? Not sure. In some localities, it's not even technically indecent exposure without the thingy.
17 posted on
02/02/2004 6:13:50 PM PST by
squidly
(Money is inconvenient for them: give them victuals and an arse-clout, it is enough.)
To: squidly
Is it legally indecent exposure, since she had that thingy stuck on there? The 'thingy' was not a pasty, it was a metal nipple ring. Both the nipple and areola were exposed.
32 posted on
02/02/2004 6:20:57 PM PST by
Sloth
(It doesn't take 60 seats to control the Senate; it only takes 102 testicles.)
To: squidly
"Is it legally indecent exposure, since she had that thingy stuck on there? Not sure. In some localities, it's not even technically indecent exposure without the thingy."
Please visit drudge's site, and take a gander at the closeup shot of said "thingy".
Then, make your decision on whether or not Ms Jackson is innocent in this case.
70 posted on
02/02/2004 6:49:14 PM PST by
Darnright
(Janet Jackson, winner of Super Bowl's "Breast In Show")
To: squidly
"Is it legally indecent exposure, since she had that thingy stuck on there? Not sure. In some localities, it's not even technically indecent exposure without the thingy." The FCC has decency rules during prime time TV hours. A bare breast or one that shows a nipple is definitely off limits. All broadcasters know this.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson