Janet Jackson's 'Nipplegate' case could reach US high courtreimpose Re`im`pose´
v. t. 1. To impose anew.
Verb 1. reimpose - impose anew; "The fine was reimposed"
levy, impose - impose and collect; "levy a fine" a half-million-dollar fine slapped on CBS (Cell Broadcast Service) See cell broadcast. television for a 2004 broadcast of live images of pop star Janet Jackson's breast, court documents obtained by AFP (1) (AppleTalk Filing Protocol) The file sharing protocol used in an AppleTalk network. In order for non-Apple networks to access data in an AppleShare server, their protocols must translate into the AFP language. See file sharing protocol. show.
It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it will consider the request.
Prosecutors are asking the high court justices to weigh in on a case that raised eyebrows and stirred passions in the United States United States, officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. , where nudity on non-pay television is a no-no in advertising, while rare and limited to late-night hours in television series.
Jackson was performing live at the Superbowl when the attention-getting move took place, in a routine featuring her and fellow performer Justin Timberlake.
The performers shrugged off Jackson's exposure level as a "wardrobe malfunction," amid criticism from some quarters that it looked every bit as carefully choreographed as their routine, watched by 90 million viewers at home.
The Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission (FCC), independent executive agency of the U.S. government established in 1934 to regulate interstate and foreign communications in the public interest. imposed a 550,000 dollar fine on CBS for breaking indecency INDECENCY. An act against good behaviour and a just delicacy. 2 Serg. & R. 91.
2. The law, in general, will repress indecency as being contrary to good morals, but, when the public good requires it, the mere indecency of disclosures does not suffice to exclude rules.
But after a three-year court fight, a federal court in Philadelphia in July ruled that the network could not be held responsible for Janet Jackson's actions.
The government asked the high court to consider "whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the federal communications commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously (...) in determining that the most widely viewed broadcast public nudity in television history fell within the federal prohibitions on broadcast indecency."
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||AFP Global Edition|
|Date:||Nov 21, 2008|
|Previous Article:||Rossi comes off track in F1 testing|
|Next Article:||Rwandan presidential aide expresses 'surprise' at arrest|