On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered a lower court to reconsider its previous decision to toss out a $500,000 fine against the CBS network for Janet Jackson’s exposed breast for nine-sixteenths of a second during the halftime show at Super Bowl 2004. The case that coined the term “wardrobe malfunction” was sent back to the appeals court due to a high court decision last week that upheld the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) right to fine networks for airing even a single expletive.
From a social standpoint, one has to wonder, where’s the harm? The American Association for Nude Recreation advocates for the right to enjoy non-sexual social family nudism in appropriate settings. While a Super Bowl halftime show is not your usual appropriate setting, the Jackson case seems to be part of a bigger issue. A disturbing trend against harmless nudity has included nude statues being draped by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft so they wouldn’t be visible to the public during a speech. Women have been vilified for breastfeeding in public. Classical nude art has not been allowed to be displayed in art shows around the country, and a teacher was reprimanded for putting a single nude photo of himself and his wife at a nude beach during a family vacation on his personal website.
None of the above instances involve anything that could be misconstrued as inappropriate, just as the Jackson incident has been blown way out of proportion. Here’s hoping the appeals court once again refuses to find merit in the case and the five-year case can be put to rest. Yet the discussion regarding the wholesome naturalness of the human body deserves to be continued.
