The way it goes from what I've heard and read is that at the end of the song, Justin Timberlake was supposed to rip off her leather breast cover like he did, but it was supposed to leave a covering (her bra), which it did not, exposing Ms. Jackson’s entire breast and its accompanying jewelry. Now speaking as a man that was a great TV moment to watch! What's funny is the furor that's come since then. OK, I can understand CBS saying "Look, we're sorry". I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the FCC crap that's come since. The "swift & decisive action" against a breast on TV is such bullshit. Again, I understand them apologizing since most families weren't expecting that, but a FCC investigation? Please, our society is so messed up that we still allow kids to buy/play games like Grand Theft Auto, yet show us about 2 seconds of a woman's tit, and all hell breaks loose! Funny thing about the halftime show and all those people who were offended by a woman’s breast didn’t have a complaint about all the Cialis & Viagra ads for erectile dysfunction that were also aired. They go and show something that might give someone a REAL erection and for Christ’s sake, we can't have that!

The outrage that followed the two seconds of bare booby was extraordinary. The network subsequently received numerous viewer calls, with many parents complaining that while they were watching the Super Bowl with their children, the family tradition had been interrupted by unexpected nudity. So is it time to forgive, forget and simply mandate the use of enhanced time delays? Not according to the FCC or Congress. Both have used the Jackson incident as a hammer to try to enact further speech restrictions. Restrictions that have nothing to do with the original incident and in doing so, both have seriously threatened Americans' First Amendment right to free speech.

The day after the Super Bowl, FCC Commissioner Michael Powell ordered an investigation and he stressed that it would reach not only the "Nipplegate" incident. "I know it when I see it," Mr. Powell commented, "I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand the basic concepts of common decency here." People, Station and networks started running scared! On February 5, NBC aired an "E.R." episode only after editing out a scene that would have shown a glimpse of an elderly patient's. MTV decided to make some changes to its video rotation relegating certain videos, such as Britney Spears' video for "Toxic” and numerous other videos. And now I hear that CBS is canceling the televised Victoria Secret Fashion shows. Good God, the next thin I’m going to hear is that the Simpson’s are too violent and are to be taken off the air. Even my favorite morning show, KROQ’s Kevin and Bean, are tip-toeing around their management and the FCC. They are legitimately scared that they are about to be out of a job.

First, Powell has suggested fines for violations may now be increased greatly. But why? The outcry over the Jackson event was doubtless, in itself, sufficient warning to anyone who might have contemplated risking another violation (Except Ms. Jackson who did it again recently during a skit on SNL that spoofed herself). The current fines or even the threat of them are obviously more than enough. On March 12, The US House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation substantially increasing the maximum fine for radio and TV indecency. The vote was 391-22. Similar legislation is pending in the Senate. The next Wednesday, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists sent a letter to House members objecting to the provision allowing the FCC to fine individual performers for indecency. “Such legislation should be rejected on the grounds that it represents an unconstitutional threat to free speech and would have an unnecessary chilling effect on artistic freedom,” said the letter from union president John Connolly and national executive director Greg Hessinger. Now that the FCC has the power to levy fines of up to A HALF MILLION DOLLARS for a single indecency infraction, adult-oriented hosts are engaging in self-censorship, lest they be hit with career-ending fines. Damn! You can plead guilty to a variety of felonies in this country and you might be able to avoid jail time by doing community service and paying fines, but the fines are nowhere near as huge as the suggested financial penalties for talking about sex on the radio. There is no recourse or appeal process for the fines. Once a station is fined, that is it, the have to pay or they go off the air. Clear Channel Communications, the nation’s largest radio station chain, announced last month that it would require its disc jockeys to pay part of any indecency fines and suspended broadcasts of Howard Stern’s radio show on its six stations that carried it. Just a few days ago, they made it official by banning Stern permanently.

Second, Powell has made clear that he has no problem with imposing strict liability that is, liability regardless of fault, on broadcasters. Even entirely blameless local stations and affiliates will be swept within his net, he has insisted. But that's unfair: Only culpable parties, if any, should be punished, including radio and TV show guests.

Third, Powell has indicated that he will apply a vague and capricious standard as to what is indecency, a standard that you "don't have to be a lawyer" to understand. But without legal wording and legal limits on what can be considered indecent, that is, without strict legal lines drawn in the sand, the chilling effect will only be amplified. Any speech that the speaker fears might run afoul of viewers' sensibilities will predictably be chilled. How is that free speech?!?!

This is how insane things have become: One morning a few weeks ago, the general manager for the flagship station of Howard Stern's radio show told Stern not to play an excerpt from ''Oprah'' because the salacious content could result in a massive fine from the FCC. Again, Oprah was deemed too racy and risky for Stern. In both cases, the hosts were talking in graphic detail about creative slang terms for unusual sexual activity. If anything, the ''Oprah'' stuff was more ''obscene.'' Let’s set the record strait: I can’t stand Howard Stern, his show, his topics, or even some of the ads aired during its broadcast, but that doesn’t mean that I think that the FCC should have the power to take him off the air. I don't have to rely on Congress to be my Big Brother. All I have to do is make the choice to avoid it. Not that the debate should be about individual tastes. I'd rather hear finger nails dragged across a chalkboard than listen to the lunatic ravings of Rush Limbaugh or the rantings of Stern, but if there was a government-endorsed movement to silence either of them, I'd be the first in line to protest on their behalf. This is America, and even a stick-thin floppy-haired pervert and a grotesquely fat pill-head with an irrational hatred of liberals deserve to be heard! Life in America in 2004 shouldn't be so different from life in America in 2003 just because Janet Jackson's nipple-shielded breast flopped out on TV for two seconds. As for the standard counter-argument that the airwaves ''belong to the public,'' I couldn't agree more and there are already devices in place to keep track of such things. They’re called the ratings book and channel dial. Democracy is truly a wonderful thing. In the free marketplace, you're welcome to say whatever you like, and if the people don't want to buy what you're selling, goodbye. That point made, please explain to me how the FCC's draconian actions fit into any working definition of democracy.