February 07, 2004
Boobiemania jumps the shark

It's official: Our national case of the vapors resulting from Janet Jackson's exposed boobie has become a clown show.


A Tennessee woman has sued Janet Jackson and others involved in her breast-baring Super Bowl halftime show in Houston, saying millions of people are owed monetary damages for exposure to lewd conduct, court records showed Friday.

The suit, filed earlier this week in federal court in Knoxville, Tenn., also names pop star Justin Timberlake, who performed with Jackson, CBS Broadcasting Inc., show producer MTV Networks Enterprises Inc., and the parent of those two companies, Viacom Inc.

Meanwhile, upset television viewers have filed more than 200,000 complaints about Jackson's revealing halftime performance -- a record for the Federal Communications Commission, officials said Friday.

The lawsuit in Tennessee asks the court to declare the matter a class action for purposes of damages. No dollar figure is mentioned in the suit, but it estimates that over 80 million U.S. viewers might be due compensation.

CBS has said the game drew an average viewership of just under 89.6 million people. Advertising during the game sold for more than $2 million a spot.


I believe that I will suffer an actionable level of damage if this suit is not tossed out of court immediately and with extreme prejudice. Where oh where are tort reform proponents when they can be useful for a change?

Posted by Charles Kuffner on February 07, 2004 to TV and movies | TrackBack
Comments

Lawyers who take cases like these should be disbarred.

Posted by: Tim on February 7, 2004 7:47 PM

Lawyers who take cases like these should be disbarred. - Tim

And judges in such cases... should they be disrobed?

Posted by: Steve Bates on February 7, 2004 7:50 PM

And judges in such cases... should they be disrobed?
---

As long as I don't have to see it...

Posted by: Tim on February 7, 2004 7:58 PM

Personally, I'm suprised I haven't seen a "Tit for Tort" headline in the New York Post.

Posted by: William Hughes on February 7, 2004 10:07 PM

I'm not in favor of 70 year old judges disrobing and i feel "Tit for Tort" is to classy for the Post. I'm no tort reform activst but this is ridiculous

Posted by: Tek_XX on February 8, 2004 1:01 AM

Don't worry. This suit won't get anywhere near a jury. Remember, anyone can sue anyone for anything; that doesn't mean the suit gets anywhere.

Posted by: Kenneth Fair on February 8, 2004 11:17 AM

Don't worry. This suit won't get anywhere near a jury. Remember, anyone can sue anyone for anything; that doesn't mean the suit gets anywhere.

That's what many thought about the hot McDonald's coffee lawsuit, too. I hope you're right, but until the loser starts paying all costs associated with frivolous litigation, I'm not as sure.

Posted by: Tim on February 8, 2004 11:56 AM

That's what many thought about the hot McDonald's coffee lawsuit, too.

Sigh. That old canard again? Here's a more objective perspective on the infamous "McDonald's coffee lawsuit."

Posted by: Mathwiz on February 9, 2004 10:04 AM

That's what many thought about the hot McDonald's coffee lawsuit, too.

Sigh. That old canard again? Here's a more objective perspective on the infamous "McDonald's coffee lawsuit."

Posted by: Mathwiz on February 9, 2004 10:06 AM

See also The True Stella Awards page on Stella's case.

Posted by: Greg Morrow on February 9, 2004 1:38 PM