Woman sues over Janet's breast

lol, your right. we should take this discussion else where. On a side note, that breast of hers could be classiffied as a wmd (weapon of mass disgust).

later,
epic

 

Epic, my last post on this. What you're arguing is the same as the police receiving a call from dispatch that there's a man running crazy with a loaded gun, a clear and immediate threat to the general public. They find the man and all they discover on him are empty shell casings, no gun at all. While they've yet to thoroughly search his house and his neighbors' homes, it's fairly obvious that the man didn't represent an immediate danger or threat.

 

hehe I love that thing...I thought it was the greatest thing when I saw it a while back and it seems to do a pretty good job of getting people to realize how far off the beaten path they have gone...much moreso then a line or two of text (easily ignored).

 

http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20040206

 

Ahem.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/18/sprj.irq.chemicals/

Don't shoot your mouth off so fast epic. You might find your foot in it.

They thought they found blister agent in those shells, and it turned out to be nothing. But yup, I'm just lying and I don't have my facts straight. Yup that's me.

So as I was saying before John, don't bother with the hardcore right wingers. They'll see whatever they want to see and massage it all away just to support their golden fundie boy bush.

 

True. A (translated) quote from this article:

"A dad who AP have spoken with says that Janet Jacksons behavior didn't cause any questions from his kids. However, after the ad for a powerful impotence pill his 12 year old son asked:
'What's erection disorders?'"

Puts it a little into perspective.

 

ROFL... The irony is simply suffocating.

Before you make as ass out of yourself and do something like call people ignorant liars, may I suggest YOU get your facts straight? Since the war, there were no WMDs found in Iraq. I repeat, none. Not even a token artillery shell.

 

hey that 12 year old boy might need to know about that . I had a friend when we were 14 and we went skinny dipping with some of our female friends (all attractive) and he couldn't get it up . At 19 when viagra came out he finally lost his virginity

 

Thus, we need more boobs on TV to diagnose the erectile dysfunctionas soon as possible.

 

I honestly do not see America being upset by this at all. Rather i see the press trying to sensationalize this material, as they always do, in order to draw attention. Plenty of very shocking things have been shown on television via MTV and the music awards (IE Marilyn Manson) that have gone by relatively unnoticed.

But do go ahead and continue to blame the US for moral objections to matters you see as trivial and blame conservatives (as if it were only a conservative matter) for supporting censorship in the past. Yes both conservatives and americans and stupid. Its plain to see. The evidence here is just overwhelming.

 

there are a number of Americans in this very thread who are upset by this. but i suppose it makes your argument seems stronger if you overlook that, eh Legion?

 

Did i overlook it? No? Did overlook what i said? I think so. I mentioned that some conveseratives do object to this kind of material being on screen. However, a number of forum goers hardly constitutes the whole of america. So, i am mindful of your necessary over exaggeration to demonize. Furthermore their objections are perfectly reasonable. They have every right to want to be able to protect their children from material they see as obscene.

-btw there are americans who are also supporting this the lack importance in this.

I thought i might add Epic is not a natural born american.

 

the forum here do constitute a sample group though, with a high number of objections at that. true it is a small sample, but if you want to look at a larger one then all you have to do is look at the 200,000+ complaints filed with the fcc and the fact that cbs was flooded with calls as well. furthermore i'm not trying to demonize anyone, only pointing our the overwhelming level of sexual repression in this country.

oh and while i realize epic is an immigrant he sure seems to put a conscious effort into going with the flow, which in this case ammounts to being outraged over the situation.

 

A sample that seems about 2 or 3 people in size.

Is it wrong to object? Are you some how an idiot because you do?

Kyleb, in all honesty thats not a representative sample.

200,000+? There are over 260 million people in the US. That makes for less than .1% of the population.

Certainly these people have every right to complain. Their complaints do not reflect the whole.

Overwhelming sexual repression? They disagree on matters of censorship and suddenly they are "repressed"? All societies are repressed to some degree. We aren't infact running around having sex with everyone everyday.

Oh come now Kyleb. Can you please perceive he has a mind of his own?

 

I think I'll sue the Sun for page 3. When I was a young kid I purchased that Newspaper instead of the Beano. I expected news only to find a pair of knockers on the 2nd page. I don't think I've ever recovered from that shock all those years ago - for 3 yrs I thought all breasts where shades of grey, when I got my 1st look at a real pair I assumed she'd painted them.

 

well then i sue because i am color blind and you interfere with my world view...

 

Sadly, having a conversation with the people who are not on the forum is difficult. Plus, discussion with two (or more) people who agree tend to become really boring really fast.

I agree to almost all of Your post (see? not much fun...), but would like to point out that people who believe that breasts on TV equals loss of moral, values, family structure, belief, sincerity etc. DO have every right (within the boundaries set by the society) to protect their children from anything they declare obscene.

Do You agree that they DO NOT have the right to protect MY children from anything THEY declare obscene (toothbrush?) but it is MY right and responsibility to do so?

Sadly, because if a naked boob is indeed illegal on TV (standard set by the society) then Janet could be sued. Of course, then there remains the problem of proving that the boob did cause damage/harm/whatever, which would be a tough one to prove (as being rambled by me/others in this thread already).

Executive summary: The standard set by the society should probably be re-evalued by the WHOLE of the society. Not just the loudest members... If majority still agree, then so be it.

As it stands, it looks like majority does indeed believe that boob equals corruption on said society.

And majority of finns seem to think that we cannot handle alcohol very well. Fortunately recently we seemed to agree that mature finns could probably handle violence and porn on videos, and reinstated k-18 (not for people under 18 ) videos. See the part about setting standards agreed upon by majority?

PS:
I hope that the demonizing part was not aimed also at me?

 

As is this thread.

Well ok. Likewise they have the right to object to seeing those same materials.

You likewise have the right to object to their objections. Freedom of speach in action...However we also live in a society where laws are determined by the majority who feel censorship is necessary.

Sadly? Are you really broken up over this? I really see this as a matter of cause and affect: she made a choice which she knew was wrong and is now paying for it. If anything i am only supporting censorship in the sense people can object to viewing certian materials.

IF anything the case will never reach the courts.

I believe this is how the laws were determined on the issue.

I believe its more the sexual implications rather than the boob itself.

again i believe this is how the standards were set.

this is much like our rating system...

I didn't know any of this was aimed at you...

 

Majority of finns do not believe that alchol should be taxed to death. However, our laws (which SHOULD reflect the will of people) currently do tax them to absurd levels.

I assumed the same to be the case on the "nipple on air" at US. I read that You disagree? That the law actually reflects the opinion of the majority?

Then what was the point of:

...?

Finally! This:

really is why this gets talked about.
Yes. Never mind what actually was said ("boob"), mind what You think was meant ("goatse").

This is where the misunderstanding happens. I (and most of the posters replying to this thread) read boob, some read Barely_Legal_3_XXX_DivX.avi and wonder how "they" can subject the kids to that. There must be something in the water over there. And the culture must have experienced loss of... etc.

Sometimes a boobs are just a mammaries. As in mammal. Older ones tend to sag unless silicon is misused. Sometimes useable as instant sources of milk for coffee when You forgot to visit the store yesterday.

But as we obviously disagree on the real meaning of nipple, and (most importantly ) this thread does not amuse You, lets table this for now.

 

Yes, sort of like our alcohol and cigarettes.

Yes i do feel the opinion in this case reflects the majority. I could be wrong though...

A reflection of open objection in a forum. Not all may find certain material on the tv screen offensive. However i am willing to wager most agree on some forms of censorship.

out of curiosity did you take these statements to be directed at you?

I obviously don't think that is what the full objection was about. I feel there is an underlying sexual implication that the boob represents. Not that there is anything wrong with the boob persay.

I think the misunderstanding is some of the thread goers are trying to sperate boob from sexuality when the two can not be easily seperated. Needless to say i feel this argument is really concerning sexual material not suited for television.

Lets us not try and erase the sexual nature of them as well...

Correct, just as we disagree she showed them to present to us here mammary glands and not for shock value.