Randy Cassingham's Blog

I still can hardly believe that there was (and, apparently, still is) so much hullabaloo about seeing a woman's breast. Especially an exposure of such a short time. I guess the U.S. is still under the influence of the 16th century Puritans.

We better be sure not to allow American tourists to watch TV in Europe where bared breasts are common, especially in advertisements.

OMG! A breast! On TV. This is the end of society and morals as we know them!

Let's go back to murder, explosions, assassinations and other stuff that doesn't cause society to deteriorate like it is in AMEERICA!

WAR- NOT LOVE!!!

(Sarcasm, I hope you notice!)

Those things, for which CBS was given a huge fine for showing, are nothing more than milk glands, with outlets for the milk to be excreted. It's not as if we were watching sex organs. Sheesh.

For someone as reasonable, honest and fair as you, I'm surprised at the tragic logic error in the fourth paragraph of this article. The end of the paragraph explains that you don't "believe" it was accidental, but earlier in the paragraph you claim that your mini-site "proved" it was planned. No, it didn't prove any such thing, it made an intelligent reasonable arguement based on available evidence, but the available evidence still leaves the possibility, however slight, that it was indeed an accident. I won't use this space to go into a detail-by-detail debate with you, mainly because I'm not saying that your belief is "wrong", but I am saying that it needs to be treated as a belief, not fact.

---

I should have said: The prosecution rests. -rc

The reaction in the UK to this unimportant and grossly over-hyped event has been one of bemusement. Obviously this reaction is partly due to the fact that naked breasts are a common sight in our media, with our "red-tops" containing at least one image of a naked woman every day.

But in truth the impression here seems to be, "Typical American overreaction! What's the big deal about a bare boob when the US media is full of far more shocking images (as Jou from San Leandro so accurately points out)?

Of course, I suppose we should never forget that the Pilgrim Fathers were, of course, Puritans...

Reminds me of the time Bugs Bunny suffered an electric shock and there was an ensuing montage showed Bugs in all sorts of positions of agony. One of the fleeting images was that of (a drawing of) a naked woman, which, to my 9-year old eyes, was hilarious. It lasted one frame. If you blinked, you missed it.

---

I hadn't heard that (though I have heard "charges" that Disney has done it in more recent toon movies), but sure enough I found a reference to the practice. -rc

The thing that I found ironic about this was that Justin Timberlake didn't receive any bad press or drop in popularity from this incident as, clearly, Janet Jackson did. Without his pulling off her clothes, there would have been no incident, yet he emerged unscathed.

---

Seems to me he was just a tool toward her end. She was the one who had the break-away wardrobe. But yes, it IS interesting that he suffered no repercussions. -rc

It's obvious to any woman that she intended to expose her breast. She's wearing a pasty. We usually wear bras under our clothes, not pasties. Pasties are for display.

I do not believe that this actually comes up again. This is the sort of thing that makes America look ridiculous. Fined over a bare boob? Bad press? Come on! You cannot be serious. No wonder someone is going to challenge that in a stunt. How much has this cost by now? The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.

---

It came up again because reason prevailed -- by way of a court decision. Is it ridiculous? Yep: that's part of the point. But it's lovely that the court was so stern; it's a clear "grow the hell up!" message. -rc

I didn't understand the logic of the fines in the first place. They were only imposed upon 20 CBS owned & operated stations, not the 200 CBS affiliates (source).

Obviously it was a fine only against CBS itself, but since the fine was only against the network, why then was it multiplied 20 times? Wouldn't that be the same as doubling an assault sentence because the attacker used both fists instead of just one?