According to this article, court proceedings about the 2004 Superbowl halftime show – yes, the largely forgotten and no longer infamous Nipplegate – are continuing. The FCC want to ensure a $550,000 indecency fine is served to CBC, who they deem is responsible for the incident.
Have I mentioned Nipplegate, the incident that popularized the phrase wardrobe malfunction, took place in 2004 – that’s 6 years ago, for those of you who are mathematically challenged. This, of course, has to go through the third circuit court of appeals, eating up tax payers dollars, and landing the controversy back in the news. Again. With more pictures of Janet Jackson’s breast.
Frankly, I remember the Janet-Justin Superbowl performance as the last of the greats before we were subjected to Prince and The Who. I had no idea that anything scandalous had taken place until the following morning when my marketing teacher was still upset that something so dreadful happened on live TV. This is particularly funny because I had recorded the game – just for the halftime show – and then re-watched the halftime show several times, all without noticing the wardrobe malfunction.
Clearly, the, uh, exposure was intentional, but I can’t help but think the entire thing was blown out of proportion. If parents are alright with their kids singing along with the lyrics, “I’m gonna have you naked by the end of this song,” are they really going to care that a fuzzy, wide angle, indiscernible flash of boob made it on to the television?
I think they shouldn’t.
In recent years, Go Daddy has produced superbowl ads that I find very offensive, as they objectify women. And let us not forget that Adam Lambert recently performed on tv, whipping his dancers and simulating oral sex. In my estimation, both are more indecent than Janet’s hardly noticeable breast.
But that’s the stickler, isn’t it? Indecency is an opinion. What I find insulting or inappropriate is hilarious to some people. The show Family Guy is a great example; I think 90 percent of the show is completely indecent and inappropriate, but a lot of people I know love it so much they own it on DVD. The case is still up in the air because as a particularly permissive society, we can’t decided whether or not the event was actually indecent.
Meanwhile, the taxpayers are still paying for this case to make its rounds in court. Haven’t we already suffered enough? For goodness sake, we – the superbowl audience – had to endure Prince in all his elevator shoe, turqouise-wearing, purple-rain-singing glory.
$550,000 is a little more than the price of a house in my neighborhood. I would guess that 10 times that much has already been spent in legal fees and the cost of proceedings. Easily. It’s probably a fraction of what the CBC bigwigs get paid, and is probably the amount of money Justin Timberlake spent on his last vacation. I suggest that Janet, Justin, and CBC take one for the team and split the bill – it would probably feel no different than paying for lunch to them anyway.
In the meantime, we can all concern ourselves with pondering the nature of indecency and the government could spend some of tax dollars working on the healthcare system.