This is an interesting precedent. No wonder this ruling was kept on the down-low. Heaven forbid that it be determined that the FCC acts “arbitrarily or capriciously.” That would only be stating the obvious.

In Ancient Greece, it was Helen’s face that launched 1000 ships. Sadly today in America, it’s Janet Jackson’s breast that launched a 1000 frivolous fines from the FCC. I’m glad this was thrown out. Anyone who actually saw this event knows that it was for a split second and, in fact, much less of a big deal then it was made out to be. Clearly, it was planned . . . or would you assume Janet Jackson wears nipple jewelry “just in case.”

It’s things like this that make America the laughing stock of the world. We are a country that tolerates amazing depictions of violence but cannot stand even an innuendo of sexuality. For example, while Rock Star’s Grand Theft Auto series did get press for its excessive violence in its game, it’s the “Hot Coffee” mod depicting sexual situations that got the game and it’s maker into “Hot Water.” Never mind that the game regularly includes car jacking homicides and cop killing, if you have sex in the game then it becomes a problem.

My point isn’t that we need to crack down on violence in our consumable entertainment but just to point out the absurd inequity of how we rate it. Couple that with the fact that the Chairman of the FCC is an appointed position, we are left with dubious proposition to the enforcement of one of our most treasured freedoms, free speech.

Certainly, many will complain about the affect that this “wardrobe malfunction” had on children. I seriously doubt children would have even noticed if it weren’t for the fact that grown ups made such a big deal of it. To put it in perspective, I challenge parents to rent the movie “Hostel.” Imagine for a second that your child watched that movie. What about the film would give them nightmares, I wonder? The sex or the violence? Then contemplate the fact that nudity and sexual situations are weighed far more heavily in giving a film an “R” rating than graphic violence. It’s a moral inequity.

Technically, you can still exercise your free speech and say whatever you want on TV. However, if what you have to say doesn’t jive with the FCC at that particular second, on that particular day, under that particular administration then you will be left destitute. And, of course, all subject to change without warning or explanation. Or . . . . is that subject to change as well. Arbitrarily and capriciously indeed. Great ruling.

what he said