|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » The justice system in the US can be exceedingly slow. |
| 1-10 of 10 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 11-02-11 11:50am - 4799 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The justice system in the US can be exceedingly slow. How long does it take to decide a legal case? Eternity, if you are in the United States, apparently. The U.S. Supreme Court last year ordered a three-judge panel from 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to reconsider its 2008 decision, when the panel ruled the Federal Communications Commissions acted improperly in fining CBS over the fleeting exposure of Janet Jackson's breast during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. So the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the three-judge panel last year to reconsider its 2008 decision. And it took the three-judge panel until yesterday to issue its finding, that the original decision it made in 2008 was still correct. How long did it take for the three-judge panel to issue a decision on its original decision, after being ordered by the US Supreme Court to reconsider its decision? ........... ........... Appeals panel sides with CBS over Super Bowl fine By MARYCLAIRE DALE - Associated Press | AP – 1 hr 30 mins ago PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld its finding that the Federal Communications Commissions acted improperly in fining CBS over the fleeting exposure of Janet Jackson's breast during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. A three-judge panel from 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that the FCC improperly assessed a $550,000 fine against the network for the so-called "wardrobe malfunction" that lasted just over half a second. During the Super Bowl performance in Houston, Justin Timberlake ripped off Jackson's bustier, briefly exposing her breast and a silver sunburst "shield" covering her nipple. In arguments last year, the FCC argued that CBS should have been aware the performers might add shock value to the act. "CBS had a duty to investigate," FCC lawyer Jack Lewis argued. The network countered that regulators were now trying to apply different standards to words and images despite previously excusing fleeting instances of both. The Supreme Court last year ordered the appeals panel to reconsider its 2008 decision, citing a ruling in a Fox television-led challenge, when it said the FCC could threaten fines over the use of a single curse word on live TV. In the majority opinion, 3rd Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell wrote that the Fox opinion did nothing to undermine the earlier decision on the CBS fine and, in fact, confirms the appeals panel's ruling. The FCC "arbitrarily and capriciously departed from its prior policy excepting fleeting broadcast material" in assessing the fine, Rendell wrote. The same panel initially sided with the network in 2008. | |
|
||
| 11-02-11 12:47pm - 4799 days | #2 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
^ As an outsider I am even more appalled that a partially revealed breast should have become an issue and evoked such a large fine in the first place. So strange, the U.S. Porn industry is the largest and most productive in the world yet, in prime time, you can't even show a shielded nipple lest a child be corrupted. Yet, as I've stated many times before, for some reason real world violence, including the sight of dead bodies is okay ... even when the children are still awake. As to the speed of the judges' decision, Canada is not much better. Here, too, the windmills of justice turn with agonizing slowness. It is not unusual to see present day trials in connection with offenses that are three or more years old. | |
|
||
| 11-02-11 04:41pm - 4799 days | #3 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
The exposed breast would frighten the child because it doesn't look like the nipple of the formula bottle that was used to feed corporate coffers and compromise his immune system. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 07:42am - 4798 days | #4 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
There's probably a lot of truth to that!  | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 08:03am - 4798 days | #5 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
As an unrelated aside ... I'm always amazed that some women's group hasn't raised the issue of sexual discrimination in cases like these. If it were a man's nipple, there would have been no problem. Despite how much we all admire women's breast, they're not really genitalia. But then, I guess women's groups know how much men worship breasts and the women don't want to lose that source of power over us. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 10:06am - 4798 days | #6 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I'm not an "outsider" and I'm appalled. Why do we--or Americans at least--even have a government organization (the freaking FCC) that has the power to issue fines over content in the first place?! Never mind the speed of the courts, or lack thereof, as this was hardly the case in need of a speedy trial, but how did this puritanical nonsense ever become legal? Doesn't this violate the 1st Amendment at some level or another? I really don't watch much TV, and when I do it's on the net, but it still aggravates me that I have contribute tax revenue to the superstitious whims of the morally outraged in whatever represents the latest battle in their imaginary culture wars. Couldn't the money and resources devoted to fining these supposed evildoing broadcasters and the filthy unregulated halftime bare-nippled secularists they employ be better spent on real communication and legal issues? Not to pick at old wounds, but since this case is one of the many nuggets of glory from the Bush II years, can anyone else imagine if this kind of public overreaction was aimed at the real horrors of those years, instead of at the rare sighting of an unsheathed (if not unshielded, apparently  ) nipple at the Superbowl?And sorry if my response/rant here sounds like one big overreaction, but to me the whole incident represents the piss poor morals and values that my fellow Americans can seemingly muster out of thin air whenever nudity or sex or just hints thereof are involved, but not for real issues that civilized adults should be addressing.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Nov 03, 2011, 10:11am | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 10:20am - 4798 days | #7 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I think a huge part of why the fine was so big is because of when the incident occured and the type of show where it happened. I mean NYPD Blue had already shown a lot more nudity prior to this incident but it was late at night and the audience knew that there would be some nudity. NYPD Blue still got flack from family groups for it. You had to be "pardon my French" a fucking idiot or in this case idiots to not realise that showing Janet's left pierced nipple on network TV during the Superbowl was going to be the scandal to end all scandal. Janet and Justin are the two idiots. The case has taken a long time to get resolved but the Supreme Court judges were probably in no hurry to come up with a ruling since we are basically talking about money. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 01:21pm - 4798 days | #8 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Don't worry, not much has changed. If you read stories about Lincoln or some of the founding fathers, you'll see that it wasn't unusual for them to have cases lasting 5 years or so. Here's the real world answer to the problem: Courts don't have armies or treasuries. They rely on others to be funded they are always getting slashed. With the recent financial woes of the world it's not unusual now that if two parties in a civil lawsuit (as opposed to a criminal case) expect a trial to last more than a few days then they won't even get a trial date because there is no time and no judges available. On the federal level, about a third of the federal judge positions sit empty because the Senate can't even agree to vote on people that would otherwise pass unanimously. Lastly, the wheels of justice in America were never designed to turn fast. The whole process of motions, exchanging information, posturing, etc. takes time and was sort of designed to take time in order to ensure fairness and to dampen the emotions involved. Tack on the other two reasons and you get the current mess. Hell, there are lawyers who have spent their whole careers working a case. Don't worry though, there are places in Europe and other parts of the world where we look like speed demons. | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 04:34pm - 4798 days | #9 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
I wonder when in modern society, the human body went from something we admired and enjoyed. Into something we should find disgusting and deviant. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 11-03-11 06:45pm - 4798 days | #10 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^I could say that what passes for the human body today is more due to a surgeons scalpel and artifical implants and less about what nature gave us. I could also say that this issue had very little to do with a woman showing her pierced nipple on TV and more to do with every news organisation using this incident for ratings. The number of people that actually saw something during her actual show is probably so tiny that if it hadn't been filmed than most wouldn't have known about it. Of course everyone saw it at least a dozen the following days and weeks. I wasn't offended by it and I don't think a network should be fined for what 2 individuals chose to do during a live network show but I do believe that janet and Justin should have received a fine for their act in the same way that exposing yourself in public is a crime. In their case they chose to do it in front of millions of people so the fine should be equal to the stupidity. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 1-10 of 10 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
