This is getting ridiculous already

[DKSuddeth]

http://www.local6.com/entertainment/2959480/detail.html

Network Bleeps Janet Jackson For Saying 'J' Word
Letterman Is Singer's First Network Appearance Since Super Bowl

CBS has finally gotten its shot at bleeping Janet Jackson.

Jackson appeared on David Letterman's show and the censors bleeped her for saying "Jesus" in the singer's first network television appearance since her infamous breast-baring incident at the Super Bowl in February.

She said it in apparent exasperation as Letterman asked her about her in famous "wardrobe malfunction" -- as her co-performer Justin Timberlake described it -- at the conclusion of the duo's halftime number.

Letterman's "Late Show" broadcasts, like Jay Leno's "Tonight Show" are taped hours before they air, so if there is any objectionable content, censor have ample warning to edit anything out.

ABC's "Good Morning America" won't quite have the same luxury of time Tuesday when Jackson appears: the show will only have a five-second delay for her performance.

Jackson is making the rounds on network television to promote her new album, "Damita Jo," which is in stores Tuesday.

On Letterman, Jackson insisted baring her breast was an accident and not a stunt. She said she and Justin Timberlake did not rehearse what happened.

Jackson repeatedly told Letterman she didn't want to talk about the incident.

She said she wants to put it behind her and she's sure people are sick of hearing about it. But Letterman says he wasn't so sure about that.

Jackson said it was "very embarrassing" to "have so many people see this little breast."

The controversy erupted Feb. 1, when, at the end of a flirtatious duet between Timberlake and Jackson, Timberlake reached across Jackson's leather gladiator outfit and pulled off part of her bustier -- leaving Jackson's right breast exposed. Jackson, Timberlake, CBS and halftime show producer MTV all apologized for the incident, but it wasn't enough for the Federal Communications Commission, which called it a "deplorable stunt" and launched an investigation.

 

[NewGuy]

I want to know how this can be done while claiming it free speech.

The point is that it is illegal.

 

[_dmp_]

Breasts are cool...unless they are on a man.

 

[NewGuy]

I have heard many people claim TV should be censored. Then they turn around complaining that the 10 commandments have been removed.

The reality is that this was forseen and the Constitution provides that no restrictions are to be placed on that freedom.

TV is an excuse and it is entertainment, not necessity.
We have a right to speak, not hear.

So, if you turn on the TV,

1: Look at boobs

or

2: Turn it off and look at your own or read a book.

-or read a book with boobs in it......

Now see what you guys did to me?

 

[William Joyce]

Funny how that works. Jesus is censored, Janet's tit is exposed.

I know, she said it in vain.

But the point remains.

Every Jewish movie reviewer save one has called "The Passion" "pornographic." If you think I'm exaggerating, look at compilation by William Donohue. More here: http://www.catholicleague.org/03press_releases/quarter3/030812_passion.htm

But they're all silent on the Jackson tit, except for the Jewish media mogul's comment that it's "no big deal."

Don't let your kids near the "Talmudvision," people.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by NewGuy


I have heard many people claim TV should be censored. Then they turn around complaining that the 10 commandments have been removed.

The reality is that this was forseen and the Constitution provides that no restrictions are to be placed on that freedom.

TV is an excuse and it is entertainment, not necessity.
We have a right to speak, not hear.

So, if you turn on the TV,

1: Look at boobs

or

2: Turn it off and look at your own or read a book.

-or read a book with boobs in it......

Now see what you guys did to me?

The problem stems from the overwhelming belief that boobs are evil, and kids shouldn't see them. I was more pissed off about how they were dancing, than the boob. I don't want my kids simulating sex when they dance...EVER...until they are 30 or I am dead.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dmp
The problem stems from the overwhelming belief that boobs are evil, and kids shouldn't see them. I was more pissed off about how they were dancing, than the boob. I don't want my kids simulating sex when they dance...EVER...until they are 30 or I am dead.

Good point. Boobs are not evil. Most people want to censor that sort of thing since they cannot address the fact that human feelings and actions are what needs to be controlled.

They fear their response, so they censor the media.

The dancing, however IS an issue.

 

[Unknown]

Ok, I can't keep quiet on this, I'm here more for learning but this issue is really irritating. What is the big deal about a boob. I have two of them, if one happens to be shown, whats the big deal. People offended? It's a part of our beautiful body. If you choose not to see those kinds of things don't look. Thats called freedom of choice, which the American government doesn't seem to give us a choice anymore. We have to go with what the majority FEELS like they want to see.

Sorry for the venting, by the way, yes I'm new but I'm more of a lurker.

 

[MtnBiker]

Maybe the majority of america does not want to see a boob at a televised half time show.

 

[William Joyce]

If you choose not to see those kinds of things don't look.

During the half-time show of the Super Bowl? You must be joking. I cannot fucking stand this liberal response to obscenity on television: "Turn the channel, Nyah Nyah Nyah." No, no, no. Television and radio are different from other media, because they are immediate. The government has recognized this, and that's why the FCC can legitimately crack down on obscenity.

Boobs are beautiful. Yes, and they retain their mysterious beauty by STAYING COVERED UP most of the time. Vaginas are natural, should we have them on TV for the kids to see, too?

Turn the channel. Turn the channel on our declining civilization is more like it.

 

[jimnyc]

Personally, I wish I could see naked women nonstop on every channel there is! But, I don't think this stuff is appropriate for regular TV, and especially on a program that you KNOW children are going to be watching. Why not allow vulgar language on all the radio stations too? People can just tune into another station, right? Unfortunately, our children WON'T tune it out, which is why radio and TV do need to be kept within certain limitations.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I see that everybody is still missing the point of all this shit.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I see that everybody is still missing the point of all this shit.

I honestly just skimmed the entire thread. What is your point?

 

[Unknown]

Let's be realistic, kids shouldn't watch TV in the first place, if I want my child to see sports, then I let them see the sports but you know halftime is the entertainment time. I believe it should be the parent controlling what the kids watch and not the government. And do you guys really think that with the way society is, advertising beer, commercials (I found some more insulting than a boob), and the dancing, you didn't expect something like that? Don't let the kids watch the halftime show. Have them prepare food or something and if you want to see, then do so.

People always want the government to do something about it, why don't we stop asking from our government and take responsibility for ourselves.

 

[Unknown]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I see that everybody is still missing the point of all this shit.

Is it about saying "Jesus" on TV. I thought that they bleeped it because of the name and they think its from a religion.

An example:
They will have lawsuits because someone said "Jesus" and the Letterman show now is trying to promote Christianity, you know where I'm getting at.

This world is getting pathetic.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Unknown
Let's be realistic, kids shouldn't watch TV in the first place, if I want my child to see sports, then I let them see the sports but you know halftime is the entertainment time. I believe it should be the parent controlling what the kids watch and not the government. And do you guys really think that with the way society is, advertising beer, commercials (I found some more insulting than a boob), and the dancing, you didn't expect something like that? Don't let the kids watch the halftime show. Have them prepare food or something and if you want to see, then do so.

Why should I have my child avoid the halftime show? It's national TV and it's intended for a general audience. I should have no reason to be worried what my son might see. It's utterly ridiculous to expect me to deny my children the right to watch tv unless I'm there at every moment. We let our children watch programs that are geared towards the general public. If this was on HBO or Showtime, I would agree, but regular TV needs limitations.

I suppose we should allow people to have sex on their front lawns and street corners as well. We should just control where our children walk so that they don't see it.

 

[winston churchi]

Remember how television works.

A company like Coca Cola will sponser a show and pay a lot of money for a show - if views decide not to watch a show because of Janet Jackson (never mind how silly it may be to you) than a company like Coca Cola will either not sponser the show or the value of that slot will be low.

So in the end, Coca Cola or Pepsi or whomever speaks on behalf of you the viewer..which is why we have Showtime and HBO - they are not supported by 'commercials' thus they do not have to answer to them....

I was watching JJ on some program tonight and she said she was told by the music awards - don't ask which one, they are all the same to me - not to attend due to the fiasco.

Overall I could care a less.

 

[Aquarian]

I suppose we should allow people to have sex on their front lawns and street corners as well.

only the hot ones...

but seriously, I'm against censorship. If I never hear bleeep again I'd be very happy. the editing of janet saying jesus in the tone that is implied by the context probably did more to save her embarassment (or would have if the story hadn't come out) than it did to protect the ears of the little pitchers, but was most likely done as censorship of a 'cuss' word. right, wrong? public airwaves where licenses are given out for free (or nearly) allow some justification for censorship. Still, wish the censorship was in the tv rather than the broadcast end so us adults could see and tell it like it is without worrying about kids...

so, dk, what was the point?

 

[winston churchi]

Speaking of bleeping -


I was watching a movie the other day - (I notice this a lot) -

and this was the quote :

You assbleep.


No, you're a bleephole!

Some parts of the movie the word ass and hell were in it while other times they were bleeped - I know because I have seen the movie unbleeped before -

But I just thought that was funny - I dont know at what point within the same movie playing they suddenly decide the word 'ass' is a swear.

 

[Unknown]

Originally posted by jimnyc


I suppose we should allow people to have sex on their front lawns and street corners as well. We should just control where our children walk so that they don't see it.

I'm talking about TV cause we as parents have control over that. I guess I would just have to disagree with you. I do believe we should take the responsibility as parents to limit children watching TV and fully be aware what our child is learning and watching. I as a parent, should be responsable enough to turn off the tube when it get's bad. Not let someone else control it. Remember just talking about TV here.