I for one am glad the FCC got this one thrown back into their faces. If they wanted to go after someone, they should have fined the people who were in on it and I don't believe CBS was one of those parties.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUKN2140776020080721

Someday there will be a decent documentary produced that shows the influence of that single act and how it manifests itself in the media today.

So much for malfunctioning wardrobes...

The FCC reaction to this event was beyond stupid. As a matter of fact, I've rarely seen anything intelligent out of the FCC in all the years I dealt with them.

The FCC is a dumping ground for political obligations. When a President is pressured to give someone an appointment, and they are too dumb for any other job, they get appointed to the FCC.

AMEN, Deane!!!!

The FCC reaction to this event was beyond stupid. As a matter of fact, I've rarely seen anything intelligent out of the FCC in all the years I dealt with them.

The FCC is a dumping ground for political obligations. When a President is pressured to give someone an appointment, and they are too dumb for any other job, they get appointed to the FCC.

Having had my own dealings (for 10 years) with the FCC, I actually agree with you Deane. With the exception of William Kennard (between Reed Hunt and Michael Powell), every one of the appointees has been a disaster. Kennard was not a politician nor aspired for higher political office. His handling of the Reform Act Congress handed down to the FCC for implementation was an impossible task, yet Bill did a better job of protecting existing litigations frozen under the Act than expected. His advocacy for small broadcasters was also advanced under his tenure. Stanford/Yale law educated, I had the distinct pleasure of being represented by Bill before the FCC in Docket 90-418(105.9) for the first 5 years of the case before moving on to become Reed Hunt's General Counsel on the way to his own appointment as Chair.

WOW people are actually agreeing with Mrs. Blindbarn. Maybe Hell has frozen over.

There should NEVER be a fine for a great pair of boobs.
Infact its criminal to keep a great pair of boobs out of the spotlight.

Beano the Boob lover!

FCC Commissioner KEVIN MARTIN issued this statement regarding the ruling:

"Today the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the JANET JACKSON incident during the SUPER BOWL Halftime show was not indecent and declared that the FCC was wrong to fine CBS for the broadcast.

I am surprised by today’s decision and disappointed for families and parents.

The SUPER BOWL is one of the most watched shows on television, aired during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience.

Hundreds of thousands of people complained about the show, and a unanimous Commission found that it was inappropriate for broadcast television.

In fact, following this incident, Congress said we should be assessing greater fines -- as much as 10 times the amount we actually fined CBS -- for incidents like these in the future.

I continue to believe that this incident was inappropriate, and this only highlights the importance of the Supreme Court’s consideration of our indecency rules this FALL."

Both Congress and the FCC are pandering to the religious kooks.

And the culture war continues...

It was ONE BOOB, for less than ONE SECOND. At TV resolution, it's maybe 50 - 100 pixels TOTAL.

CJ, that would be a very interesting, and probably sobering documentary.

Somebody somewhere is gonna call it terrortainment and we can just shut all the TV's down. I'm half serious on that.

Yeah, up the fines. Just like we have really nailed the war on drugs. That problem is solved right? Envy of the world aren't we?

Thought so.

This escalation is exactly the same stupid stuff.

We are a nation of prudes.

A couple of questions come to mind;

1. Are Breasts indecent? Why?

2. "Congress said we should be assessing greater fines"
Congress at the time was under Republican rule.
Isn't this excessive government regulation of business?

You bet it is!

And no, the breast is not indecent. Not at all. We've just got the same repression happening here as there is in countries where women are to remain so covered that nobody anywhere could appreciate them.

I thought all along they should have gone after Jackson and Timberlake and whoever producer(s) put the the whole thing together.

More sad days of indecencies in America.

"More sad days of indecencies in America."

Please tell me what is indecent about a breast.

Of all the major industrialized nations in the world that do not have completely state-mandated media, we are the most conservative. The FCC slapped a silly, frivolous fine of monumental porportions ... for a breast? Guess what, we all see breasts as kids, it's a part of nature, and while it wasn't in good taste, was it REALLY that offensive?

Most any European country would have viewed the "wardrobe malfunction" as trivial.

We are a nation of prudes.

Amen missing KSKD! Look at other countries, where men and women walk around BUCK naked and nobody cares! Little boys are exposed to bare boobs and penises at a young age.
Why is our country so prude? Why should we be freaking out because little Johnny just saw a bare breast????OH MY GOD! LITTLE JOHNNY JUST SAW A BARE BREAST FLASHED IN HIS FACE!!!!!! THE HORROR of live human flesh!

When I was 16, I was on vacation in France at a popular sea side resort and man alive, there were beautiful bare naked ladies sunning themselves on the beach. What is a 16 year old to do? LOL. Enjoy the scenery.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Janet have a tassle over her nipple? If so, then this is nothing different than cleavage showing. Big F'n deal. This is what you get when conservatives appoint fellow travellers to positions of power.

If she had a tassle over her nipple than obviously this was no accident. This wardrobe malfunction was no malfunction.
Janet Jacksons career is over with, she finally needs to realize that! Radio is not playing her new music, she is a has been just like her brother Michael.

"More sad days of indecencies in America."

Decent people wouldn't tell other people what they can or cannot look at. You, on the other hand, do not have to look.

Besides, you've yet to explain how you allow yourself to be in the same room with women who are having their periods. That's a pretty big Bible no-no. So unless you are excusing yourself and exiting whenever a a mensturating women is present, YOU, sir, are indecent.

Millions of American Parents were outraged by this event and do not want their children/teens to see this stuff...not prudish...just decent. Now the question for America in light of this latest ruling is how much nudity should/can we be exposed to...the ruling says "fleeting moments" are ok and not unlawful...so the dirty old man who wants to expose themselves for a "fleeting moment" can do so...sad days...but a noted silver cloud lining is that Jackson reaped what she sowed...the public not excepting her music.

accepting

Trust me. ALL teens have seen way more than that. Every last one of them. They've seen porn, they have heard the "please let me fuck you" music, been offered drugs, know somebody who has taken them, seen gay people together, masturbated, watched a fight, seen weapons, and pretty much all that humanity tends to do.

It's an extremely safe bet that being offended by the boob on the tube means also not really having talked to your teens.

And that comes with the reality that somebody else is talking to them.

The prude doesn't get asked those important and defining questions because the teen isn't looking for a dogma laced guilt trip. They are looking to know some stuff so they can figure out who they are, not be pressured into being somebody that their parents and peers want them to be.

Being decent comes with a degree of tolerance and understanding of these things and an ability to see where they are in the scope of life issues.

Janet showing a boob just isn't a life changing thing. In fact, if it is, then that life has some far more serious issues to deal with.

This works like Disneyland. Everybody loves Disneyland. They love it because it's all controlled very tightly. Conservative even. You pretty much know what is going to happen, and that's an escape from the real world where you really don't pretty much know what's going to happen.

It's not possible to legislate Disneyland, and I think we've got a fraction of us that wants to try and do just that.

IMHO, the real question is do we let them devalue and dumb down everything in their attempt to do so? The court just said no.

>>Being decent comes with a degree of tolerance and understanding of these things and an ability to see where they are in the scope of life issues

But where talking about being indecent...offending against generally accepted standards of propriety or good taste; improper; vulgar: indecent jokes; indecent language; indecent behavior, unbecoming or unseemly, distasteful, immodest, indecorous, indelicate; coarse, outrageous, rude, gross, obscene, filthy, lewd, licentious, improper, inappropriate...from Dictionary.com

Don't see where tolerance comes to play here.

Let's start with harm.

Who got harmed by the boob?

Seeing a boob as a kid will not turn you into a raging pervert. No matter what the uptight might want to think.

Who got harmed by the boob?

Jerry Falwell. He never recovered and died. Remember?

I like boobs and would like to see more of them.

Me too, but I need Broadway to tell me the harm.

Here is a close-up of her boob, her piercing and her huge star-shaped nipple shield. There is also video of the male streaker at the same Superbowl:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/risque/superbowl.asp

No Rick Roll, I promise. Just skin.

(Any kid could find this faster than I just did.)

Hey Broadway, just tell me this.
Am I going to hell since
I like to look at Pornography, I like to masterbate, and I have had many sexual escapades and I'm not married. ( I have also had sex in my Yugo)

Am I going to hell Broadway?

BTW- Janet jackson's boob looks more like a water balloon, than a breast!

Good grief...millions of American parents don't matter about what they want their children to see on supposed regular normal television?

>>Who got harmed by the boob?

why not ask any Mother of a grade school kid.

No, we want to hear it from you.

Ask your wife.
Or your Daughter.
Or your Grandkid.

Just answer the question.

>>Am I going to hell Broadway

Thats between you and God...take it up with Him...He has your fate.

>>No, we want to hear it from you.

Great challenge...you'll hear soon from the women in my life (wife and daughter) My grandson is just one year old and can assume does/can not have an opinion on the topic but he is the smartest/cutest/goofiest one year old on the planet!

She had a PASTIE! That's not the whole boob! No nipple, no big fine I say.

So the mother of that grade school kid, you know the one that:

might have seen their mother getting dressed?

watched their younger sibling breast feed?

stayed up late to watch the Extenz commercial?

listened to the suck it and f-it music on Jammin'?

played show me yours and I'll show you mine with the girl next door? (ok, so those might be little boobs at that age)

was home sick, and happened to see dad's porno?

had a real sex ed class? (mine had boobs in it, BTW and it was 5th grade)

has looked at the National Geographic primitive people issue of the year?

charged in to the bathroom in a hurry at the wrong time?

watched a movie somewhere that was R rated?

You need to show me that seeing a body part does harm. I don't think it does. I think seeing acts can do harm, but not body parts.

Now, the mother has boobs. Surely she was not harmed by Janet's pastie covered one. The father has seen his share of them too.

No harm there at all.

Perhaps they were offended. Ok. That's fair, but that is also as big of a deal as any one person wants it to be. And that's a big part of why I don't support such a strong action. Think about that one. If some parents were offended, where is the harm? Lots of people are offended by lots of things! Do we regulate all of those things?

Of course not! Why? Because there is no real harm! It's a mental thing, where one is as pissed off as they WANT to be about it. That's what being offended is.

So, the kid asks, "why did she show it?". Perhaps there is a comment, "look at that!". Maybe "why only one?" (heh, the slightly smarter bear)

It's a performance, not a sex act. This means the answers to those questions are on the table, human and totally not harmful.

Up to the parents really.

(continued)

So, let's say the parents were REALLY offended. Flat out pissed off huge.

Frankly, the kid seeing that might be somewhat harmful! It sets the stage for all kind of phobias and anxieties over the breast. It must be a huge deal, if it upsets mommy and daddie so much right?

On the other hand, the parents can answer the questions, explain why that's not appropriate behavior, down play the thing, and everybody moves on, healthy and happy.

Maybe we should assess that large fine, not for the kiddies who might have seen a partial boob, but for the possibility that we might trigger unstable parents into harming them!

I'll go for that, what do you think?

BTW: I do agree with Aok at the top of the thread.

If anybody had to pay, it should be Janet, not CBS. She showed it and did not set the expectation that she was gonna show it.

Mom, what's a "POSTVAC"? I just saw it on TV, it looks kind of cool, can I have one?

Oh, and Mom, I think I have bi-polar disorder, can you get me some "Abilify" to!

Totally!!

IMHO, those questions are a whole lot more difficult than the ones they are gonna ask about the boob.

"...you'll hear soon from the women in my life (wife and daughter)"

Exactly how "soon" will that be? I'm still waiting for an answer.

"My grandson is just one year old and can assume does/can not have an opinion on the topic..."

Did/Does he see/drink milk from his Mom's breasts? Or is/was he a formula boy?
Did you prevent your daughter from breastfeeding because the baby would be "offended"?
Did your daughter BF in front of you? Or did you make her go in another room if she did?
Are you offended by BF in public? (I'd assume you are)

Some commentary from Breakpoint.org

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.

More at www.breakpoint.org

OK, so what, I little peek at a boob with the nipple covered, Big Deal.
What I find offensive is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44aZ942z8gI&feature=related
Brothers and Sisters primetime ABC.

>>I little peek at a boob

ok...where do you draw the line...where is it outa bounds for a superbowl entertainer?

Yes...the ABC show is a disgrace...shame on them.

So, I know this was live and everything, what happened to the digital delay guy, did he fall asleep at the switch or something?

What needs to be determined is who actually planned that stunt. At the very least the entertainers, and I use that term loosely, need to be fined. It was obvious that Justin did that on purpose and it looks as if the covering was in fact some kind of velcro piece. So, how deep does the rabbit hole go. Was it just those two or were there others behind it? All those responsible should be fined. and again, what happened to the live show digital delay?

>>Did your daughter BF in front of you?

Mrs. M...Actually my daughter is still single and by grandkid is from my son and daughter in law.
We have been kinda busy and the topic has not come up due to more important things to do/talk about but will answer still...stay tuned...

Oh please, now you're nit-picking!

And YOU have not answered the questions I asked YOU, so again:

Did/Does he see/drink milk from his Mom's breasts? Or is/was he a formula baby?

Did you prevent, or try to prevent your son and daughter-in-law from breastfeeding because the baby would be "offended"?

Did your daughter-in-law BF in front of you? Or did you make her go into another room if she did BF?

Are you offended by BF in public? (I'd assume you are).

Every single time you say "stay tuned" or "maybe I'll start another thread", it means you hope we'll forget that you didn't answer the question, and that you never answer or start another thread. Total dodge.

You're guilty of doing that many times. But you can just ask God for forgiveness, so that makes it all OK, right?

After all, It's just a little tiny fib.

You know what I was totally offended by?

The non-stop morning, daytime, and primetime ads for the new show "Flashpoint", apparantly about a SWAT team.

People-Killing Guns. and more Guns. In every single clip/picture/scene, Every single person is holding/aiming an assault rifle.

Don't get me wrong, I think the show is on at 10PM, and I don't care about that, I just didn't want to see the ad every freaking time I had the TV on...like during "Ellen", or any time Baby M could have possibly seen it.

That's what I do NOT want Baby M to see on TV. I don't care about a boob (she probably sees mine everyday, poor kid) or a male/male kiss, although I don't watch that B&S show either. (And that was a sappy, stupid video BTW)

A show about killing people is more offensive to me than a short tiny glimpse of a little 1-cm part of a nipple. There wasn't even areola.

I've seen more boob and ass at the pool or on a beach. From teen-agers. Whose parents appear not to know or care what their daughter's are buying and wearing. Big Deal. Not my kid. I won't even buy her a bikini. She's 2.

Hey, it was the first one I found, I wasn't about to preview any more to find one that was better. I could not hit the stop fast enough once they started towards each other. Just needed to make sure it was there to show what I was talking about. If you'd like to hunt down a less sappy video be my quest!

More recent commentary on topic...

In Janet Jackson 'flap,' everybody lost
By GENE POLICINSKI • Gannett News Service
July 29, 2008
The "flap over the flap" has proved to be a flub, at least in the opinion of a federal appeals court reviewing the FCC's $550,000 fine of CBS as a result of Janet Jackson's famed "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled July 21 that the FCC's action in punishing CBS didn't mesh with the previous 30 years of agency action that was punitive only when indecent programming was "pervasive," not fleeting.

The court didn't mince words about the incident: It said Jackson and performing partner Justin Timberlake deviated from the show's script with a "deceitful and manipulative act," the baring of Jackson's right breast on camera for nine-sixteenths of a second.

But, the panel ruled, for more than three decades the FCC — which oversees broadcast but not cable or satellite TV — has said that so-called "fleeting" incidents didn't reach the "pervasive" level. The judges said the agency was entitled to change its policies, but not after the fact and without notice.

So years after nine-sixteenths of a second energized the push for increased fines and more government control over what's on television, we're left with this bare fact: Everybody lost in this case.

CBS won its appeal of the fine — but suffered damage to its reputation, was embroiled in lengthy legal action, and saw the resulting uproar provide new life to critics who would parse TV content using various sets of personal moral guidelines.

Groups like the Parents Television Council initially won when the FCC issued its fine — but after July 21 had to retool by posting online complaints about "activist judges across the country" overturning the FCC action and, not incidentally, thwarting the result of a successful PTC letter-writing campaign.

Jackson and Timberlake can been seen either as inept performers who accidentally caused a major fiasco, or as publicity hounds who tricked CBS and some 90 million viewers with a less-than-artful closing stunt.

And the American public is either frustrated with a federal agency's inability to enforce its own rules, or is wondering why such a momentary moment still lingers in court more than four years later.

The appeals court decision came in a 102-page ruling exploring various issues raised by the FCC and by CBS in addition to the agency's rule-making process: Whether the network was legally responsible for the Jackson-Timberlake actions if the court found they were "employees" and not independent contractors, whether the network took sufficient steps to anticipate and prevent an indecent image from reaching the airwaves, and whether there is a legal difference between "fleeting" words and "fleeting" images.

But we should consider one additional thing: A comparison between this drawn-out, complex case and the swift, uncomplicated and decisive nature of the private sector's "decision" in 2007 about shock-jock Don Imus, after his infamous derogatory references to the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Imus' actual insulting comment lasted longer than "fleeting" milliseconds — but not that much longer. And his words focused on race, perhaps the only subject in America more likely to produce stronger reactions than sex. Still, in little more than one week, without any government agency getting involved, Imus had become the target of massive public outrage and both his highly rated radio program and companion TV show were off the air.

If we think the goal in both the Jackson and Imus incidents should have been to hold someone accountable for stepping over a moral line, then there's little question that the public outcry over Imus was more effective than government review — and much quicker.
The First Amendment protects free expression, both in the original sense and in the ability of others to react to it. The amendment's 45 words restrain government and empower the "speaker" — but no provision is made for protection against a negative reception.

Surveys by the First Amendment Center and others show Americans see themselves — as viewers and as parents — as the first line of defense against TV programming they don't like, with content producers second and government officials a distant third.

It doesn't take four years to turn to a new radio show or TV station. No judge has to rule on a letter to a network or an advertiser, sent either as an individual or as part of a nationwide campaign. And I think even I can work the "change channel" button on my TV remote in less than nine-sixteenths of a second if I really want to.

If God wanted people to run around naked, they would be born that way.

Right on, Deane!

Broadway:

What's your point?

We don't need another article commenting on the wardrobe malfunction. Old news. Does anybody even care, besides you?

I'm asking to hear how it affected YOU and your wife and your daughter.

Are YOU going to answer my questions, or continue to divert, stall and dodge?

And DT, I was mainly referring to the sappy, sappy song it was set to, and the comments posted below it...You had to get a LONG way into that video for a kiss. Since I don't watch the show, it It was b-o-r-i-n-g. Lots of longing doe-eyed Donny Osmond-type gazing at one another.

Do adult gay men really go "park" in an open convertible overlooking the city in a dark and desolate place, and just sit there looking at the lights? I doubt it.

I think that the most important issue with "fleeting indecency" is that if there are no such provisions in the rules, then broadcasters will not be willing to do live on-the-scene broadcasts because of their inability to completely control that environment. For instance, the big Iraq war demonstrations in downtown Portland were covered live on KATU, KPAM, and possibly other stations. Some protesters noted that this was happening, and they took the opportunity to yell indent chants (ones using the F-word). If there were strict penalties for all on-air indecency, regardless of the circumstances, I don't think that anybody would have done something as risky as doing those live reports.

I partially agree with Broadway Dan on a philosophical level in that Janet Jackson and possibly her wardrobe people and Justin Timberlake should be the ones being held accountable here. The problem is that the FCC only has the authority to issue fines against its licensees. Perhaps, the people who were offended by the wardrobe malfunction should have launched a class-action lawsuit against Ms. Jackson.

Janet Jacksons career is over with, so that should be a penalty in itself. Radio stations have been ignoring her last two albums.

Janets boob flashed so quickly that most young kids probably didn't even see it, and if they did, thought nothing of it. Its the dumb ass parents that are making a huge deal about this, and continue to draw attention to Janets "water balloon" when the kids who saw it COULD CARE LESS!
GOD I HATE STUPID PARENTS, and there are plenty of them.

Let those parents put their money where their mouths are by launching a class action suit against Jackson. I find it curious that people in this country launch lawsuits for a littany of reasons, yet in this case, nobody is stepping up and saying, "Ms. Jackson, you have perverted my fine children. Now, you must pay!!" Instead, people are whining and complaining that the government isn't doing enough to intimidate broadcasters. What's wrong--aren't there offended parents out there with enough money to afford lawyers?

Wasn't it actually Justin Timberlake who perverted our fine children?

They won't launch that lawsuit because they are NOT gonna be able to prove their kids were harmed by the boob.

If the kids had a problem with that boob, their parents fucking them up is the cause, not the boob.

So, they do it indirectly, trying to control things instead of dealing with their own issues.

Thanks! That explains why I haven't heard back from Broadway.

You know it.

The disingenuousness of these parents makes me want to puke. This is just an opportunistic ploy for these parents and activists to get on the news so they can make the statement that American society isn't Christian enough. It is not about the children!

Had the chance to sit down and talk with my wife and daughter last night. Daughter at the time was out of the country teaching ESL and did not see/was not caught up with the scandal thus no opinion. My wife was mostly concerned about Timberlake and his wardrobe malfunction deed and called it a demeaning act to a woman, but of course she knows it was all a publicity stunt among consenting adults on live television for a fleeting moment...all bad messages to send to society...not very high standing on the moral scale...we can send lots better messages to millions of TV families on it's most watched night.

I think the 700 Club sends bad messages to society and should be deemed offensive and indecent.

Well at least the 700 Club does'nt get a half million complaints to the FCC.

Maybe that's because we just ignore them and change the channel, instead of whining to the Government that "Something needs to be DONE!".

Maybe instead of changing the channel, or pushing the button on our radios, we should start complaining. Seems to have worked well for those people who feel they must "rise and save us from ourselves". (Thank you, Neil Peart)

Most of those complaints were lodged by one group, the PTC. This group has nothing better to do than to get offended at just about anything and file a complaint about it. Folks like me don't have the time nor the motivation to file complaints against offensive programming like The 700 Club because we have better things to do with our lives, and we are happy with our live, unlike the miserable souls of the PTC.

Yep, and I refuse to play on that level. Making me pay attention to their behavior and trying to beat them at their own game gives them an easy win...if I change...

I wish those people would put that kind of energy into doing something nice for the guy next door, the food bank down the block, the school in their neighborhood.

Without expecting a trade-off of some sort. Without waving any flags. Just because it's the right thing to do.

http://www.parentstv.org/

The Parents Television Council is a non-partisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment. It was founded in 1995 to ensure that children are not constantly assaulted by sex, violence and profanity on television and in other media.

such a scandalous group to protect children!

I have a question:

So, you sign up for the newsletter, respond to the "Call for Action" against a program like Swingtown, even if you didn't watch it, which, I'm assuming, very few of these people did, and NEVER with their kids...

How can you, or your children, be harmed in any way by programming you didn't even see?

Seems more like minding your neighbor's business instead of your own.

I wonder if anyone's complaining about the SWAT show?

And I sorta like Swingtown.

The PTC is a group of control freaks, completely unwilling to accept the idea that people might consider choices on decency different from their own.

It is possible in this day and age to exercise control as a parent and have a healthy enough relationship with your kids to make any discussion on this topic nothing to be concerned about.

Again, if the kids were harmed, it was their parents and their issues being projected onto the kids that does the harm, not seeing a body part.

Responsible entertainment can only be realized in an environment that is robust enough to help the kids learn to deal with the social realities of our time. Denying this will only lead to a period of great confusion, rebellion and potentially failure to self-identify properly during adolesence, leading to sexual and social repression in their adult lives.

If that happens, they will need thearapy, or maybe get lucky enough to find a soul mate that can get them through all of that.

I did, and thanks for that!

Been there, seen all of that, know way better now.

Groups, like the PTC, do a very large amount of harm in this world. We really don't need them.

And if that stings a little, think long and hard about just who has the issues. Safety tip: They do.

The 700 club does not get a ton of complaints because the only people that actually watch that Nut Bag Pat Robertson are those socially and sexually repressed people, who rather than deal with their issues, would just project them onto all of us instead.

It's hard to admit you are fucked up. Harder still to fix it. Way easier to project it onto others, use religion as a crutch, and work to just conform the world to their limitations.

It's also hard to see cultural differences and understand them. Harder still to filter that down to core human rights and work to fight those abuses that are crimes against people --real, crimes with real harm, not just offenses where the people so offended are just unable to see things from any vantage point but their own bent one.

Put simply then, everybody else sees it for the freak show it is, ignores it, and lives their largely healthy lives.

Missing...to put it kindly lots of what you just wrote is untrue.

Go outside your circle of regular friends and have a few conversations. You'll find that it isn't.

Tell us why you think so, Broadway. Show your work to it's conclusion.

Take up Missing's challenge and tell us what you found.

I think some of that would answer my question, too.

Broadway, please don't tell us that you can somehow justify Pat Robertson and his borderline racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic diatribes over the years ... as always, "in the name of God."

THAT is the crutch that so many mention Broadway, and the crutch that so many of us have a problem with. It's not God's word, it's how it is used to preach hate and intolerance.

>>preach hate and intolerance

Don't see it that way and so do most Americans...your data/life input is looking too low and in the wrong places.

>>outside your circle of regular friends

your it...along with a few homeless friends I visit with weekly...

Ok, factor out the homeless.

Supporting harmful people and organizations, while doing some good, still leaves the harm.

Congrats, and you have my thanks for working with the homeless! That's all good.

Defending people like Robertson is still contributing to a significant social harm. Let's focus on that.

You've got enough social skills to strike up a few casual conversations. Go and do it. Ask a few people why they watch the 700 club, and what value they get from it.

It would be great to post the results of that here, but really all you then need to do is think really hard about what that value is.

The answers you are going to get all surround the needs of some people to make the world conform to be compatable with THEIR issues. These are answers of bigotry, theocracy, intolerance, facism, ignorance, and self-depreciation and projection, and other justifications and or rationalizations for character flaws present in those giving the answers.

...or

You will hear that the subject of the conversation does not watch the 700 club, and considers Pat Robertson to be irrelevant. (and that's being nice)

Do it.

It's not hard, and you will see rather quickly where I'm coming from and that it is solid.

Find anything different?

By all means bring it here. I'll gladly consider it, and deal straight up with you on it. I've absolutely no worries about the defensibility of the opinions I hold about these people.

Go ahead. Let's talk about it.

Man . . . if I WAS religious, the nutty religious programming on TV would sure turn me away from God. Sort of like how the troll does here.

I don't believe in God, but she is very interesting to me.

>>the nutty religious programming on TV would sure turn me away from God

Skep...I agree if I was in your shoes...there are some very scary things on christian TV these days...for the most part christian radio is a better rep of the faith/message/life.

I just can't get those church shows on sunday where the Priest is holding a person up. This person is Balling and crying, while the priest has his hand over the persons forehead channting "LET GOD SAVE YOU, HE IS THE ALLMIGHTY ONE". Meanwhile the person is just a sobbing mess.

I wouldn't consider those TV con men "priests"...

broadway sez: "there are some very scary things on christian TV these days"

Is there anything that you or your church are doing to rein these people in?

Unfortunately, asking one church or denomination to "rein in" the free speech of another is like asking the OPB Radio staff to rein in Savage or Lars. Each can try to get their own message out, but the biggest nut-jobs often have the most money for the biggest sticks. In reality, the Trinity Broadcasting Network, it's owners and the majority of it's programming only represents a small segment of Christianity commonly referred to as "Faith Movement," "Prosperity Gospel" or "Name-it-and-Claim-it," but it's a well funded segment that's difficult to out-shout.

One Christian radio commentator and author, Hank Hanegraaff regularly counters the "Prosperity Gospel" as well as other corruption in Christianity. However, if someone such as him shouts too loud too often then accusations start to fly about too much "infighting in the church." Those who want to expose corruption often can't win.

Dirty laundry can be embarassing when seen and stinks when when your close...really there's not much of that...better to converse/rub shoulders with plain next door everyday Christians than view/read them in the media.

"there are some very scary things on christian TV these days"

It's nice to see you adknowledge the fact that a few nutbag Christians that use their media bully pulpit to run the religion for so many others exist.

Most don't hate Christians as a whole, or Christianity or any other religion. It's the few that use it to dictate hate and intolerance and use their faith to justify it that we don't like. And that's for ALL religions.

I'm there completely.

It's been established plenty well enough that we all are free to make our own choices --at least here in this nation.

Circumventing that just isn't doing anybody any favors.

I find those acts offensive. They are offensive simply because many things are harder than they have to be, for no reason other than some self-serving need being filled. It's just selfish and nobody likes selfish.

"asking one church or denomination to "rein in" the free speech . . ."

Ok, "rein in" is a poor choice of words. My bad. I'm thinking more like undertaking PR activity warning other Christians that dumping boatloads of money on people claiming to speak for God is not necessary to get on God's good side. Sort of like what a government consumer agency would do for gullible citizens of snake oil salesmen.

Hmm?

>>undertaking PR activity warning other Christians

I've heard many concerns on christian radio and from different pastors over the years...need to be more...bad teaching/ideas/message.

> Unfortunately, asking one church or denomination to "rein in" the free speech of another
> is like asking the OPB Radio staff to rein in Savage or Lars.

I think that this is a pretty good analogy because many of these preachers one sees in the media operate independently without having to answer to any kind of denominational hierarchy. When churches speak out against such preachers, it is a lot like when KBOO broadcasts "Counterspin" or similar programs. The people who trust Savage, Limbaugh, or O'Reilly as dependable sources of information most likely aren't listening to the Counterspin message. Likewise, the people who listen to the more radical Evangelical preachers and televangelists probably aren't listening (or maybe even actively oppose) the messages of those churches that are speaking out against them.

Thank God for the first ammendment...but it's not perfect just like the ones who wrote it.

People aren't sending boatloads of their money to Lars, Savage and Rush. If this were to happen, everyone would ridicule the practice.

I think you guys need to do more. She's watching. And She can't be pleased.