Which frightens you more? Janet Jackons nipple, or increased censorship?

CraigPilecky · Feb 11, 2004

It seems that a tidal wave of disugst is brewing in washington. And now there is talk about increased censorship and penalties for conduct deemed indecent. Even on cable channels.

So what scares you more. The prospect of less free expression, essentially the further legislation of taste. Or Janet Jackson nipple?

bokmeow · Feb 11, 2004

I think they blew this all out of proportion. Even the kids admitted that even though they didn't think it was appropriate, none of them switched the channel. I would say they voted with their remote controls, and with their lubrication.

pyrokilla · Feb 11, 2004

Nipples don't normaly scare me.... :emb:

But Janets are :eek:

jaydubnb · Feb 11, 2004

What scares me is the creeping feeling that Michael Powell is making this a huge issue to distract people from political happenings.

neobuyer · Feb 11, 2004

pyrokilla said:
Nipples don't normaly scare me.... But Janets are

Yeah, I thought for a second I was looking at an old National Geographic magazine.

xRealNinjuzx · Feb 11, 2004

nipple shields = scary.

-Kris

Mike Shagohod · Feb 11, 2004

Nipples dont scare me. Ive got 2 or 3 or my own

*I did think the half time tit barring... heck the whole stripper thing in general was in bad taste at a place where people are with their children... but I do believe this has been blown waaay out of proportion. JT and Janet should just get fined a sum of money that we wouldn't make in three years, but to them would be shit in a bucket, and let's move on.

MERCENARY X99

GunstarHero · Feb 11, 2004

Talk about blowing things out of proportion, equating dress codes and common public decency laws with censorship...thats hyperbole of the highest caliber. Look, you can get arrested for standing out in public and flashing people in the USA, therefore, someone needs to be held accountable for this incident and fined a hell of alot of money considering this was aired on broadcast TV to a billion people.

Saying its censorship to set limits to what you can do on tv is ridiculous, if you want to maintain any kind of control over this behavior, there HAS to be a limit somewhere, otherwise you are saying its ok and that 3 years down the road, we'll be seeing people whipping out their cocks and slapping bitches in the face with them or something. Oh, its just freedom of expression, don't censor that!

You have to draw a line somewhere, and I think that keeping nudity off of public broadcast TV is a totally reasonable line to keep. Are you really going to be upset because you can't see tits and cocks on NBC and CBS? I hope not, if so seek help.

bokmeow · Feb 11, 2004

On that note, you would LOVE the student sex magazine that Harvard approved today.

Mike Shagohod · Feb 11, 2004

GunstarHero said:
Saying its censorship to set limits to what you can do on tv is ridiculous, if you want to maintain any kind of control over this behavior, there HAS to be a limit somewhere, otherwise you are saying its ok and that 3 years down the road, we'll be seeing people whipping out their cocks and slapping bitches in the face with them or something. Oh, its just freedom of expression, don't censor that!

You have to draw a line somewhere, and I think that keeping nudity off of public broadcast TV is a totally reasonable line to keep. Are you really going to be upset because you can't see tits and cocks on NBC and CBS? I hope not, if so seek help. [/B]

splits · Feb 11, 2004

What scares me more is people still watch Tv. IMHO 95% of it is pure garbage.

CraigPilecky · Feb 11, 2004

I think some of you are miss-interpreting what I was saying.

Not showing nudity on public tv is censorship. Thats what censorship is. Im not against that.

But the differance now is they are talking about censoring cable channels like HBO, music, etc. In my mind this constitutes and INCREASE in censorship. It seems Janet's nip has opened a pandoras box.

Obviously on network tv we cant have anything goes. But at the same time im very concerned to see such a spike in cersorship talk by politicians.

The superbowl thing was apparantly an accident, still there should be fines for it. But I think it is being massivly blown out of proportion. Just a couple days ago Oprah had a show with topless women covering there breasts with there hands. (They where showing you how to buy the right braw) And no one raised an eyebrow. Theres a certain hypocricy here also that isn't being addressed.

Thats my position.

johnroche · Feb 11, 2004

Frankly, I think that there need to be certain boundaries. The Super Bowl is generally a family-oriented program, something that the kids and parents may (theoretically) watch together. To lull the audience into believing this and then BAM!, subject them to nudity that would not normally be allowed on at this hour on a broadcast network, or even on basic cable, is pretty low.

And I don't buy that "it was an accident" line for one second. You know as well as anyone else that the whole thing was planned. Janet Jackson has a new album coming out in March, and controversy like this generates publicity for the album. Those celebrities see publicity like some humans see drugs--they're addicted to it, and they will do anything, no matter how illegal or immoral, to get it.

Personally, I hope CBS and MTV get nailed to the wall for this. And if that makes me sound like a fascist, then sieg muthafuggin' hizzeil.

neobuyer · Feb 11, 2004

Out of all the mostly-erronious criticism the Europeans lob at us on a regular basis, ONE of the truly applicable ones is the Sex/Morality issue.

We are the most technologically advanced and richest nation on Earth, yet we are so uptight about the naturally occuring (Maybe not in Janet's case

) HUMAN BODY.

It's not dirty to see a woman's breast- unless it's covered with steaming hot Jizz- OK?

A woman's breasts are fucking normal and commonplace and nothing to make a big deal of.

We are so puritanical in some ways it makes me want to scream.

RAINBOW PONY · Feb 12, 2004

nothing wrong with a tit, but it's the SUPER BOWL, it's pretty much THE family show, millions of little kids who like football are watching, that's why people care.

it's not like this was Cable, or the grammys, i doubt anyone would have cared half as much. Colin Farell said "fucking" live on the golden globes pre show on NBC one year, and they didn't bleep that, and there was no shitstorm.

GunstarHero · Feb 12, 2004

Look at the audience you are polling here, a bunch of kids and immature guys that like to download porn and look at big bouncy boobs in video games. No wonder its lopsided towards the middle choice in the poll. :lol:

I love to download porn too, but lets keep it off the airwaves, lets at least make the kids work to get the porn. It at least takes effort to go find it on the net. :buttrock:

rugal2000 · Feb 12, 2004

agree with gunstar hero 100% it has zero to do with censorship and everything to do with people being fed up with cheap and trashy attempts by fading celebrities to grab some attention.
It was superbowl weekend. Families were gathered to watch some clean decent american football. What is criminal is that they should have jacksons saggy and old tits forced upon them. as for Timberlake, will he seems to have a thing about older women. What is he 23?? and Jackson is 38.

bokmeow · Feb 12, 2004

rugal2000 said:
as for Timberlake, will he seems to have a thing about older women. What is he 23?? and Jackson is 38.

My HERO!

Older means better. :P
Mature means experienced.

FeelGood · Feb 12, 2004

How about we draw the line at cocks then instead?

GunstarHero said:
Talk about blowing things out of proportion, equating dress codes and common public decency laws with censorship...thats hyperbole of the highest caliber. Look, you can get arrested for standing out in public and flashing people in the USA, therefore, someone needs to be held accountable for this incident and fined a hell of alot of money considering this was aired on broadcast TV to a billion people.

Saying its censorship to set limits to what you can do on tv is ridiculous, if you want to maintain any kind of control over this behavior, there HAS to be a limit somewhere, otherwise you are saying its ok and that 3 years down the road, we'll be seeing people whipping out their cocks and slapping bitches in the face with them or something. Oh, its just freedom of expression, don't censor that!

You have to draw a line somewhere, and I think that keeping nudity off of public broadcast TV is a totally reasonable line to keep. Are you really going to be upset because you can't see tits and cocks on NBC and CBS? I hope not, if so seek help.

FeelGood · Feb 12, 2004

rugal2000 said:
agree with gunstar hero 100% it has zero to do with censorship and everything to do with people being fed up with cheap and trashy attempts by fading celebrities to grab some attention.
It was superbowl weekend. Families were gathered to watch some clean decent american football. What is criminal is that they should have jacksons saggy and old tits forced upon them. as for Timberlake, will he seems to have a thing about older women. What is he 23?? and Jackson is 38.

so then it's okay to censor everything else?

I mean, if you think about it, how are they going to combat censorable material more than they already have? Well, they'll have to hire more people, expand their budget. Where's that money come from? Not just Gunstar's wallet (where it should come from since he supports it), and definitely not yours since you don't live here. It comes from all of us americans who pay taxes. Why the fuck should we pay taxes to help keep the cable networks (I don't even pay for) cleaner when so far, it's not that bad, and there was one slip up? Sure, it'll only be a few dimes more on the tax ledger for each of us, but seriously, why fucking care?

Takumaji · Feb 12, 2004

I cannot even laugh anymore about those politically correct fighters for a 19th century morale who found her titty show offensive or even worth mentioning, I really just feel very, very sorry for them for being such sad human beings.

Force · Feb 12, 2004

Like someone already mentioned, a nipple is a naturally occuring part of the human boddy on both males and females. If people find parts of their own bodies offensive, there is no hope for us all.

Matt

galfordo · Feb 12, 2004

I really haven't seen any of this increased censorship that everyone's talking about. Give me an example to work with, ok?

I don't believe in increasing censorship at all - but I also believe that there should be some sort of warning if some dumb attention whore wants to drop her tit out for public display. It's not fair to assume that everyone wants to see your tits and/or genitals waving in their faces.

roker · Feb 12, 2004

vieny boobs are teh suck

Hidden Character · Feb 12, 2004

Nipples never scare me, unless it's the pair that are in freaky porn that stick out as far as pencils. :eek_2:

Which frightens you more? Janet Jackons nipple, or increased censorship?

Which is more frightening? Censorhip, or Nipples?

Censorship is wonderful! Society needs boundries

Nipples dont scare me. Ive got 2 or 3 or my own

I only vote in polls because no-one ever asks my opinion in real life.

Zero's Tailor

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout

Vice's grappling partner...naked,

Windjammers Wonder

Master of Disguise,

Astra Superstar

Stray Dog Grunt

,

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout

Stray Dog Grunt

n00b

Zero's Tailor

Pao Pao Cafe Waiter

Master of Disguise,

DASH DARK ANDY K,

,

, Troll Me, , Cuz I is 3lit3, ,

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout

So Many PostsNo TimeFor Games.

So Many PostsNo TimeFor Games.

Krautmin

Zantetsu's Blade Sharpener

Analinguist of the Year

DOOM

Leader of The Hyperstone Heist,

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.