For Janet Jackson, it was the breast of times, but for one Tennessee woman it was so bad that she is filing a federal lawsuit demanding billions of dollars in damages.
Bank worker Terri Carlin wants compensation for herself and millions of viewers "injured" by the lewd behavior of Jackson and fellow performer Justin Timberlake during Sunday's Super Bowl coverage.
On Wednesday Carlin filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in federal court in Knoxville, Tenn., against Jackson, Timberlake, broadcasters MTV and CBS and their parent company, Viacom.
The suit fails to specify what injuries Carlin suffered when she saw Timberlake rip off part of Jackson's costume, exposing her breast, saying only that: "As a direct and proximate result of the broadcast of the acts, [Carlin] and millions of others saw the acts and were caused to suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury."
The lawsuit argues the broadcast companies and the singers breached an "implied" contract with viewers not to subject them to sexually explicit acts during what should have been family entertainment.
"All of the defendants knew that the Super Bowl, the preeminent sports event in the United States, would be watched by millions of families and children," says the claim, filed by attorney Wayne Ritchie II.
Jackson has apologized, saying a red lace garment was supposed to remain on her breast when an outer garment was ripped away.
She denied that the NFL, CBS or MTV, which produced the halftime show, knew her plan.
Okay...its one thing to disagree about it...its another to sue over it...I dont think anyone was completely damaged by the content to the extent that they would have to sue...
People will do anything for money these days...
Pathetic!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
I really wish there was someone at the courthouse who's job it was to just read over the filing of a lawsuit like this, roll it up and beat the person over the head.
Like I said, it was a stupid stunt, it shouldn't have been done in that forum, but it doesn't warrant a lawsuit. Please!
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
chelktty said this in post #4 : I really wish there was someone at the courthouse who's job it was to just read over the filing of a lawsuit like this, roll it up and beat the person over the head.
As Americans shouldnt we be able to vote for creating a position (job) like this?? Im good for one vote! Hell, in fact, I be more than happy to take that job!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
God, I'm Australian, and I would pay for someone to do that. Do you know how many frivolous lawsuits are filed in Australia in response to one of a similar nature being filed in the US? It's like the US sets Australia's doctrine of precedent. It's just so irritating!
"Ah, my favorite book. Chapter twelve, paragraph eight, verse three: the universe hates you. Deal with it."
-Harper
"We are here. On your left would be a black hole we'll call, say, uh, 'rock'. And on your right: one we'll call 'hard place'."
-Harper
Another example of stupid lawsuits. The only reason no one does it in India is because the cases take decades to settle, but that is a different story.
Anyway, this should be in the 'Stupid Lawsuits Hall of Fame' alongside the one made by a guy in Corona, CA.
"Every positive integer is one of Ramanujan's personal friends."—J. E. Littlewood.
"Ah, my favorite book. Chapter twelve, paragraph eight, verse three: the universe hates you. Deal with it."
-Harper
"We are here. On your left would be a black hole we'll call, say, uh, 'rock'. And on your right: one we'll call 'hard place'."
-Harper
I would like to say that the woman who is suing Janet Jackson must need some serious money. How bad was she hurt? Did Janet's Boob depress her or something or did she trip over her husbands foot stool trying to look at what he was hollering at with excitement? This world is sue crazy and can they realize that Janet Jackson put in some long and hard hours to look like she does and sing like she does and she doesn't come out much and now that she did this one time- She gets this jealous women whom she has never met, nor seen- come at her with a law suit.
How would you like it if you were sitting at your home one day after a night out and someone calls or knocks at your door and tells you your being taken for millions of dollars that you worked for? Oh! and they tell you- you don't know this person, they just saw you on television and you caused them all sorts of grieve and hardache and have damaged their children because they saw a BOOB on television. OH MY LORDY BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TURN THE TELEVISION OFF!! OUR CHILDREN WILL BE DAMAGED FOR LIFE FROM THIS. THEY WILL NEVER FORGET THIS! THEY WILL ALWAYS SEE JANET JACKSONS BOOB!!!!!!!!!
GIVE ME A BREAK---- I PRAY FOR PEOPLE LIKE THIS!
I Hope Janet Jackson gets this reply some how. I will put her in my prayers. Do not fill like you have done anything wrong honey! This is a CHRISTIAN woman writing to you and I am praying for the lady who is taking this devilish step towards suing you. We know that the time is coming to an end when CRAZY THINGS like this come along.
I didn't see the show- but Goodnish- It Must Have Been Some Show!!! Your In My Prayers Janet. Amy- Biloxi, MS
I would like to say that the woman who is suing Janet Jackson must need some serious money. How bad was she hurt? Did Janet's Boob depress her or something or did she trip over her husbands foot stool trying to look at what he was hollering at with excitement?
This world is sue crazy and can they realize that Janet Jackson has put in some long and hard hours. She has put years and tears, aches and heart breaks to look like she does. She does this all to be able to SING and Bless us with HER VOICE and HER PRESENCE.
You see why we don't see much of her or any of the Jacksons due to the CONFLICTS, THE RUMORS, THE PUBLICITY, THE CONSTANT DEVILISH PEOPLE ALWAYS WANTING a RUMOR, A STORY.
NOW Janet gets this jealous women whom she has never met, nor seen her - Oh! I'm Sorry- ON TV---- come at her with a law suit.
How would you like it if you were sitting at your home one day after a night out and someone calls or knocks at your door and tells you your being taken for millions of dollars that you worked for?
Oh! and they tell you- you don't know this person, they just saw you on television and you caused them all sorts of grieve and hard ache and have damaged their children because they saw a BOOB on television. OH MY LORDY BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TURN THE TELEVISION OFF!! OUR CHILDREN WILL BE DAMAGED FOR LIFE FROM THIS. THEY WILL NEVER FORGET THIS! THEY WILL ALWAYS SEE JANET JACKSONS BOOB!!!!!!!!!
GIVE ME A BREAK---- I PRAY FOR PEOPLE LIKE THIS!
I Hope Janet Jackson gets this reply some how. I will put her in my prayers. Do not fill like you have done anything wrong honey (Janet) I am praying for you and also the for the lady who is taking this devilish step toward suing you. We know that the time is coming to an end when CRAZY THINGS like this come along.
I did not't see the show- but Goodness- It Must Have Been Some Show!!! Your In My Prayers Janet. Amy- Biloxi, MS
I agree with Neodammerung, i am also Australian and yes, we already have a sad history of blindly following US trends and frivilous litigation seems to be the next big thing as far as that is concerned.
In relation to the actual issue, i have this to say:
For a country that sees nothing wrong with invading a country full of innocent people in the hopes of finding one man, the American public sure took the high road regarding the Janet Jackson Superbowl stunt. What makes it infinately more ridiclous is that there are people trying to make money from it by suing the parties involved. I wonder if they would consider donating some of the millions of dollars they will most likely earn from such a disgusting act of greed to the rebuilding of Iraq?
How psychologically damaged could she be? The fact that she watches the game and views the skimpy outfits the cheerleaders wear and has never been scarred from that is quite miraculous. Some people will do anything to make a buck. it's really very pathetic. I hope that the case gets thrown out of court and that she has to pay court costs for wasting everyone's time. It's the very least that she deserves. Really I think she should have a couple of weeks in jail for being a complete moron, now that would be a legal precident i'd like to see set!
This is ridiculous, from the nation that brought us such beautiful TV shows as Sex in The City, Temptation Island, and Paradise Hotel, and such honoured publications as Playboy and Hustler. How can an American be "injured" by this.
If part of a breast injures you, you might as well not own a TV set in America.
SEX AND VIOLENCE ON AMERICAN TELEVISION: - The Great Puritan Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Point, CA-- The news is full of reports about the "sex and violence" on television, stirring debates in Congress, angering housewives, and inspiring self-styled "Virtues Czars" to demand controls, but few people are able to rise above the hysteria to actually question the motives of those raising the alarms, or the actual state of television programming as it is instead of as the alarmists imagine it to be.
First, there is no connection between sex and violence. The very use of the phrase "sex and violence" is deceptive and manipulative because it is a deliberate attempt to link two unrelated things that the alarmists have moral reservations about, which they hope they can cause other people to join them in. Second, while people are outraged over sex and violence, no one seems to be outraged by the superficiality of television.
Television is a WASTELAND. A typical topic on a talk-show can be illustrated by a recent genuine promo that went: "SALSA: Do you dance to it or do you eat it?" While television news upholds the artificial confidence of the general public through coverage that shamelessly promotes the infallibility of the police and the President, few people recognize that the country is racked with social tensions caused by a thoroughly corrupt system of government. Instead, the public is distracted with campaigns to "clean up" television that openly seek to force the whole population to accept the personal religious standards of a few powerful individuals.
The fact is that there indeed IS too much violence on television. Violence is part of the American culture going back to the Revolution, and it is the great moral flaw of the republic. In reality, however, there is NO sex on television WHATSOEVER. There isn't even nudity permitted on American television. What there is is suggestions and innuendos and nothing more. Has anyone actually witnessed a full-fledged sex act on prime time television? No.
Recently the results of a "study" were released by a "family group" that claimed that there is more sex on television in the 1990's than there was in the 1970's. What the "report" failed to notice was that in the 1970's, television was openly dominated by censors. Words like "pregnant" were not allowed to be uttered on the public airwaves. A return to censorship should not be interpreted as a progressive measure by any rational people.
Furthermore the amount of overt violence on television is HORRIFIC. This violence is not by suggestion or innuendo, instead television is dominated by images of fights and murders and mayhem. While there is NO sex on television at all, there ARE murders, explosions, and beatings that are meticulously explicit. And for every producer who disclaims the influence of television to create real-life violence through copy-cat behavior, there are advertising salesmen swearing to their customers that the commercials they buy will influence the millions of television viewers to patronize their products.
The real problem we face is that those narrow-minded people who are hell-bent on demanding ratings standards, are really trying to restore the censorship of the past with themselves in control. They will decide for all of us what is true and what is not; and they will decide what is "decent" and "virtuous." While it will start out as a "voluntary guideline," it always ends up as a penal code, with violators going to jail and prison.
We are in real danger today because the news and the media won't scrutinize the issues: They just go along and help prop up the powerful, using the "editorial function" as their justification for falsifying the news, confident that any popular resistance will be met with police power and punishment.
02-06-2004 09:23 PM
