Janet's baring her...um..soul-Should Janet and Justin be prosecuted for public indecency? (Poll)

crosswalk.com ^

[chance33_98]

Janet's baring her...um..soul

Kevin McCullough Radio Talk Show Host, Syndicated Columnist, and past recipient of the Tesla and Marconi Awards Sunday, February 1, 2004

Janet's baring her...um..soul

~9:35pm~ EST The only question about Janet Jackson's abrupt end to her halftime performance is - was it planned or truly an accident? As I was in attendance at a Super Bowl party with co-workers from "Good Guy Radio" needless to say we - AND OUR WIVES - were shocked to see the finale flash given by Ms. Jackson and fellow performer Justin Timberlake.

Almost immediately the conversation turned to whether the stunt had been planned or not. We all felt it had to have been planned.

In AP news stories almost immediately following the half-time show, the speculation was that Janet's bare breast was an accident. (As this picture's caption seems to indicate) The only problem is that in stories on MTV.com before the Super Bowl started - folks from the Jackson camp predicted that Janet had something "shocking" in store for the nation. The Houston Chronicle also just confirmed that it was indeed planned.

Why would she do such a thing? Well consider the buzz by recent female performers when they have done sexually controversial things on national television audiences. Britney and Madonna's kiss in 2003 created enormous buzz for weeks - and Janet Jackson (similar to Madonna) is in a woeful need of "getting back on top". The most recent song Janet did in the pre-naked display was 3 years old.

Already tonight there is a steady run of stories being written to bring the 2.5 secs of nudity to light.

Ms. Jackson's reckless use of a national platform to flash a little "boob" and create a new buzz for herself is reckless and clearly aimed at violating the FCC's stamdards of decency. Ms. Jackson AND Mr. Timberlake should both be held accountable for the attempt to present public nudity before scores of children and minors watching across the country...

TAKE PART IN THE POLL: "Should Janet and Justin be prosecuted for public indecency? VOTE HERE.

[ChadGore]

Who's got the number for the Houston D.A. ?

[Galtoid]

Publicity stunts are now x-rated fiascos. Who the hell cares what any member of the Jackson "family" does?
Perhaps she is trying to distract media attention from her pedophile brother. Justin was just a useful idiot in the scheme.

[inkling]

Justin was just a useful idiot in the scheme.

I don't know about "useful."

[jungleboy]

Just another cultural terrorist act, imho...

[sharktrager]

Given that her nipple was covered, what crime would you propose she be charged with? Being tacky?

[KangarooJacqui]

MASSIVE barf alert to this one...

[umgud]

Why bother? It's not any worse than that rapper who spent his entire super bowl performance grabbing his crotch. What a low rent 1/2 time act.

[AUH2OY2K]

Yeah, it's a well known fact that if a minor sees a nude body, including their own, they will grow up to be sexual predators.

/sarcasm
Lighten up people. It is amazing that so called conservatives can't wait to get the government involved when there is a hint of nudity.

[jungleboy]

Hey, I'm watching this game with my family.
I knew the halftime was filled with low-lifes, so I scheduled a late dinner to coincide with halftime so I didn't have to subject my kids to the filth.
However, halftime drags on...kids come in and sit down to watch the last of the slime... and we are subject to this!?
Ain't easy bringing up kids these days!

[scott91]

i have "tivo" and i went back and slo mo'd it forward. she did have a pasty on that covered her nipple. i think she should get in some kind of trouble. in slomo you could tell that it appered to be planned.

[chance33_98]

I have no problem with nudity - in fact I have less a problem with it then the left seems to have about christianity. If adults want to see that kind of thing, fine with me.

In this venue it was unwarranted and wrong. CBS recognized that, and I would hardly call them conservative. It was bad business, it was poor judgement. Had a less well known person did this in an auditorium full of kids at a school would that person have it shrugged off?

The idea was probably to shock people, then when they are those same people who did it ask why. It's harmless. People can watch what they like and enjoy it, ok by me. But this was a public event, a sporting event, and the people on stage did not care one wit about the people they were supposed to be entertaining.

Government involvement? I never promoted that myself, but if my wife exposed herself like that in public she would probably get a ticket for it - why should jj be any different? If some man exposed himself at a playground should we chalk it up to education or perversion? Afterall, seeing a man's thing isn't going to harm them.

[AUH2OY2K]

Issuing a ticket is government involvement. From what I hear Janet Jackson was wearing a pasty. (I do not watch halftime shows because they are generally dumb, boring, and stupid) Hence the evil and toxic nipple was not showing.
Apparently you haven't been to a public beach recently-there is a lot more exposure there.

[chance33_98]

I do understand what you're saying, really. I fast forwarded through most the entire half time show myself - it sucked what little I saw.

you go to a beach and you know what you're getting into, same with watching certain shows. I liken it to speeding though (the ticket part of the conversation) and the wod - you know something is illegal, you think it is dumb, so you do it then get caught. If we have a problem with a law someone things is dumb use the system of government laid down 200+ years ago to change the law. She probably didn't violate any anyway - but if she did she deserves the same thing as anyone else would get in that situation.

Perhaps what frustrates conservatives the most is how the left will claim images do mean things and will fight to get the ten commandments off public property where someone will see it, then they call people prudes who don't like public nudity (and I have long thought perhaps we should replace the word 'religion' with 'belief system' in the amendment - a belief without a deity in it is still a belief).

In the scheme of things, it is no big deal really. But the value judgements pulled out of it do lead to interesting discussions. She can bare it in front of potentially millions of kids watching and it is ok, but a man baring his privates to just one kids can get him locked up.

[AUH2OY2K]

So right you are about the ten commandments in the courtroom. It never ceases to amaze me that I can't quote Ginsberg in the Courtroom but not God. (not that I'd ever want to quote Ginsberg)

[stupid1]

How dare you expose ANYONE's breast on a halftime show of a SuperBowl. That was the most irresponsible action I have seen the NFL taken all season long (and trust me I watch all season long). I am highly disappointed in the image you have protrayed to THE WORLD about our wonderful country of the United States of America.

Shame on you.

[NYCVirago]

Government involvement? I never promoted that myself, but if my wife exposed herself like that in public she would probably get a ticket for it - why should jj be any different? If some man exposed himself at a playground should we chalk it up to education or perversion? Afterall, seeing a man's thing isn't going to harm them.

Heck, they arrested the streaker! Why the double standard by law enforcement?

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

Maybe instead of getting the government involved, SeeBS should fine the wench and let it go.
Let's see the going rate for commercials during the SuperBowl was 2.5 Million for a 30 second spot. That's $83,333.33 per second times the 2.5 second flash.....
Yep $ 208,333.33 sounds about right! And let's face it, it's not like it's gonna put her in the poor house.

[RoseyT]

Here's something I'm wondering about. Let's say one of the cameras was on a couple in the crowd and the guy ripped off part of the woman's clothing, exposing her breast. What kind of charges would be filed, even if they had planned the whole thing? Would it be public indecency? Assault? Why is it any different with the Janet/Justin thing?

[floriduh voter]

Janet and Justin were a couple after he dumped Britney. So, he'd seen that breast before. BUT, OUR FAMILIES HADN'T. Lots of organizations are bombarding all involved. I fell asleep during halftime. I saw the morning paper however, and it looked like an sado-masochistic half time program with leather, garter belts and cross-dressers. Whatever happened to Jessica Simpson? She started out in Christian music. I'm waiting for her to kiss Madonna one of these days. It's all SICK, SICK, SICK.