Woman files lawsuit over Super Bowl halftime show

[zakur]

Story (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/7883797.htm) KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - Terri Carlin wants to make Janet Jackson's bare breast into a federal case.

Carlin filed a proposed class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court Wednesday against Jackson, singer Justin Timberlake, broadcasters MTV and CBS and their parent company, Viacom.

Carlin alleges that she and others who watched the halftime show during Sunday's Super Bowl were injured by the performers' lewd actions when Timberlake ripped off part of Jackson's costume, exposing her breast.

In the lawsuit, Carlin charges that the exposure and "sexually explicit conduct" by other performers during the show injured viewers.

"As a direct and proximate result of the broadcast of the acts, (Carlin) and millions of others saw the acts and were caused to suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury," the lawsuit says.

[...]

Carlin's lawsuit seeks billions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.All because she caught a glimpse of a pierced nipple?

:rolleyes:

[Brown]

Sounds almost like an urban legend: http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/jjackson.asp

I can't open the link to the story, but let me guess: it's gonna be a class action lawsuit, right??

[swellman]

Truth is stranger than fiction.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/jjackson.asp

[iain]

You crazy Americans. Where would we be without you? :D

[Number Six]

Originally posted by zakur
Story (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/7883797.htm) All because she caught a glimpse of a pierced nipple?

:rolleyes:

I hope she wins. The breast isn't the point rather the context is the point. If they're going to change the de facto rules on what goes and what doesn't go then fine, so long as they let peple know beforehand. But just springing it on 100 million people like that should result in consequences of some kind.

It was a very selfish and inconsiderate thing to do and I'm disappointed that almost all the discussion afterwards is focusing on "What should and shouldn't be allowed during the Super Bowl halftime show?" instead of how one person (or perhaps a few people) betrayed the trust of so many others in an attempt at personal gain.

[The idea]

Originally posted by zakur
Terri Carlin wants to make Janet Jackson's bare breast into a federal case.

Carlin filed a proposed class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court Wednesday against Jackson, singer Justin Timberlake, broadcasters MTV and CBS and their parent company, Viacom.

Maybe this is what happened. Terri Carlin, who likes to write on looseleaf paper, is writing a novel about a class action lawsuit against Janet Jackson. She has a husband who works at the U.S. District Court. She dropped by to discuss something with him, but she had to wait for him. She decided to use the time to organized pages of her planned novel in an accordion file folder.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by swellman
Truth is stranger than fiction.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/jjackson.asp


The putative plaintiff in this suit, Steve Bosell, is a creation of talk radio host Phil Hendrie.

Hendrie. :D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by zakur
Story (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/7883797.htm) All because she caught a glimpse of a pierced nipple?

:rolleyes:

Carlin's lawsuit seeks billions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.

Can a person be prosecuted for a nuisance lawsuit?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Number Six


I hope she wins. The breast isn't the point rather the context is the point. If they're going to change the de facto rules on what goes and what doesn't go then fine, so long as they let peple know beforehand. But just springing it on 100 million people like that should result in consequences of some kind.

It was a very selfish and inconsiderate thing to do and I'm disappointed that almost all the discussion afterwards is focusing on "What should and shouldn't be allowed during the Super Bowl halftime show?" instead of how one person (or perhaps a few people) betrayed the trust of so many others in an attempt at personal gain.
Even if you think that there should be consequences to Ms. Jackson and Mr. Timberlake, this lawsuit is patently ridiculous. In order to succeed in a lawsuit, you have to have suffered actual damages. I fail to see where Ms. Carlin has suffered any indetifiable loss from viewing one second of a female breast.

Good lord - she must completely break down every time she takes a shower.

[Ignatius]

Boy Howdy. Slap my chicken and call me hawkish, I guess it isn't an Irvin Legand:

The smoking gun (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362270/)

I just hope that, unlike other high profile frivolous lawsuits that people get so worked up about, we see just as much coverage of this being laughed out of court as we do now (there is a difference between filing a lawsuit and actually winning one).

[Number Six]

Originally posted by Thanz

Even if you think that there should be consequences to Ms. Jackson and Mr. Timberlake, this lawsuit is patently ridiculous. In order to succeed in a lawsuit, you have to have suffered actual damages. I fail to see where Ms. Carlin has suffered any indetifiable loss from viewing one second of a female breast.

Good lord - she must completely break down every time she takes a shower.

I have no idea how the legalities work out and I wouldn't be surprised if there were no legal basis for the lawsuit. But I'd just like to see someone get some kind of consequenes for exploiting peoples' trust like that. I don't see why that exploitation isn't more of an issue surrounding this instead of "Should boobs be allowed on TV?" I guess I see this whole thing different than most others, the media included.

[American]

I don't care if Janet bared her boob or not. I hate her, and her idiot child-loving brother, and I hope she and every MTV phony (Justine, Nelly, et al.) all die in plane crashes, or drug overdose, or gang violence. Here's hoping the FCC fines them all into poverty, especially Viacom.

Not Kid Rock, however, cause I like some of his songs.

(Don't get me wrong, I like porno. I just don't like Janet Jackson and all those others I mentioned.)

[Brown]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Can a person be prosecuted for a nuisance lawsuit? Federal courts usually take frivolous lawsuits very seriously. There are rules in place to penalize offenders. In the case of a potential class action lawsuit, the court has to be very careful, because the court has to respect the rights of the putative class.

I'm on record as being opposed to most class action lawsuits for damages. This particular matter strikes me as being one of the most abusive and the most asinine cases to come about.

And yet, believe it or not, the case may have some legal merit. No doubt one of the reasons it was filed was because the "liability" aspect of the case is almost a "lock." There is no question that a human female adult nipple (gasp!) appeared on commercial television, and apparently the FCC is going to kick somebody in the head because of it. There also have been admissions of fault from various principals. So proving the "liability" part of the case should be a snap.

The hard part is the "damages" aspect. Assuming the report is correct, the class has suffered "serious injury." Now, I think that's a load of malarkey, but in class action lawsuits, things sometimes enter the Twilight Zone. If (for example) 100 million people saw the (gasp!) offending object, and each suffered one dollar worth of shock or hurt feelings, then the damages are 100 million dollars. Wow! That's some pretty serious injury all right!

The simple fact is, of course, that if any cash settlement is made, none of us in the class will see a penny of that money. Not one cent. The class will receive something nearly worthless in lieu of cash. The lawyers, however, stand to make millions of dollars for filing this stupid lawsuit. They take a percentage (say, 30 to 40 percent) of the total damages. (And they will assert their "right" to this fee even though the liability aspect of the case was a "lock" that almost certainly required no work at all on their part.)

The result: The lawyers make big bucks, and the members of the class (who are, after all, the lawyers' clients and who are supposed to be the ones who are protected) get screwed.

[Brown]

Follow-up to my rant about class actions for damages:

What should be done?

1. The judge should deny class certification on the grounds that the damages are too varied for the members of the class, or on the grounds that the members of the class cannot be identified. Denial of certification would make the matter go away really fast.

Failing that:

2. The judge should act to protect the interests of the class, NOT the interests of the class's lawyers! Lawyers who bring class actions have the incentive to screw their own clients. Those of us who are members of the class can petition the judge to have our lawyers FIRED!

3. Opt out! If you get a notice that you are a member of a class because you watched a Super Bowl halftime show, opt out! (The notice will tell you how to do this.) One of the reasons that class action abuse happens is that people are too lazy to opt out.

Another alternative is that the judge could rule, as a matter of law, that the injury, if any, is trivial, and dismiss the action on the merits.

[epepke]

Originally posted by iain
You crazy Americans. Where would we be without you? :D

The same place, only speaking German.

[plindboe]

[Angry rant]
Argh!!!! She was seriously injured by watching a breast?!!!!! What the hell is wrong with this woman? She must be a some delicate flower. I honestly felt like pulling the hear out of my head when I read this story. How can people be so unbelievably stupid?!!!!! I feel like screaming to this woman; "It's only a breast!!!!!!". There are as many breasts on this planet as there are people. She must be living a dangerous life, with all those breasts out there.
[/Angry rant]

(Sorry, about that)

[NightG1]

Originally posted by American

(Don't get me wrong, I like porno....

You also seem to have a thing for Elton John. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32963)

[Bikewer]

I suspected that our Euro friends would find this ah, affair rather humorous.


Many adults seem to have forgotten that nearly all of us spent the first couple of years of our lives in rather close proximity to one of these...objects.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bikewer
I suspected that our Euro friends would find this ah, affair rather humorous.


Many adults seem to have forgotten that nearly all of us spent the first couple of years of our lives in rather close proximity to one of these...objects. Is Australia "Euro"? Because we find it an ongoing amusement that it was taken so seriously in the first place, and that it continues to be talked about and taken seriously now. And I'm sure the vast majority of Americans feel the same way...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by American
I don't care if Janet bared her boob or not. I hate her, and her idiot child-loving brother, and I hope she and every MTV phony (Justine, Nelly, et al.) all die in plane crashes, or drug overdose, or gang violence. Here's hoping the FCC fines them all into poverty, especially Viacom.

Not Kid Rock, however, cause I like some of his songs.

(Don't get me wrong, I like porno. I just don't like Janet Jackson and all those others I mentioned.)

You don't like them because they have money and you are poor trailer trash. Jealousy will get you nowhere.

[Luke T.]

I'm still trying to figure out what Ignatius' link to The Life Aquatic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362270/) has to do with suing Janet Jackson.

[Ladewig]

I kinda agree with the woman. I sat down hoping to enjoy commercials selling (four hour) erection pills and beer ads featuring farting. Exposing a breast reduced the dignity of the event.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I kinda agree with the woman. I sat down hoping to enjoy commercials selling (four hour) erection pills and beer ads featuring farting. Exposing a breast reduced the dignity of the event.

But eliminated the need for the erection pills! :D

[Ove]

suspected that our Euro friends would find this ah, affair rather humorous.

No more like:

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

It is probably the most idiotic stirr i have ever heard about and (whit the danger of repeating myself) i must say:

THIS COULD ONLY HAPPEN IN AMERICA

[michaellee]

Terri Carlin...................prude with too much spare time
Janet Jackson..............nude or not, limited on talent
Justin Timberlake.........dude who must know many higher ups
MTV, CBS, Viacom......qualude popping advertising staffs
breast......................... food, if you like chicken
lawsuit.........................sued who for what..huh?
Super Bowl...................you'd think someone would have said "great game!"

[jema]

good grief :(

it sometimes amazes me that anything still happens in America, there doesn't seem to be anything that you can't sue for :(

Sadly we are drifting that way the UK side of the pond :( Last year I went to a parents meeting about a residental trip my child was going on, a trip that the school has run for the last 20 years and more. The head explained all the things like allowing the children to swim in the sea, that they could no longer do :(

jema

[ktesibios]

Dragging the law into a tale of bared breasts reminds me of an incident from the life of the Greek courtesan Phryne:

"When accused of profaning the Eleusinian mysteries, she was defended by the orator Hypereides, one of her lovers. When it seemed, as if the verdict would be unfavourable, he rent her robe and displayed her lovely bosom, which so moved her judges that they acquitted her"

Ahh, the good old days... ;)

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I'm still trying to figure out what Ignatius' link to The Life Aquatic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362270/) has to do with suing Janet Jackson.

Ha! Sorry about that. I sent that link to a friend earlier in the day and it must have still been on my clipboard. Here is the correct link smoking gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/janetsuit1.html)

[Brown]

Originally posted by michaellee
Terri Carlin...................prude with too much spare timeThis litigation is not modivated by prudity or any lofty motives. It is motivated predominantly by the desire for money.

[Ed]

Originally posted by iain
You crazy Americans. Where would we be without you? :D

We keep telling you that:D

[davefoc]

Number six said:
hope she wins. The breast isn't the point rather the context is the point.

Agree with you up to there.

If they're going to change the de facto rules on what goes and what doesn't go then fine, so long as they let peple know beforehand. But just springing it on 100 million people like that should result in consequences of some kind.


Disagree with you here. The defacto rules allowed crouch grabbing, raunchy dancing and sexually explicit lyrics. Into that world JJ and Justin added a stunt that involved the partial exposure of one of JJ's breasts (apparently the nipple was covered). Personally I think the stunt was creative and perfectly appropriate to the activities that had been sanctioned by MTV execs, CBS execs and NFL execs. If you didn't think the stunt was in keeping with the defacto rules but all the other stuff was it seems to me you are drawing a mighty fine line.

As to rooting for somebody to win a class action law suit be careful what you wish for. Califonia businesses are being savaged by them with the complicity of the corrupt California legislature. They could be coming to a place near you any day now.

[schplurg]

I thought that, for a split second, that she WAS Michael when she walked out! Seriously! I didn't realize she was going to perform. I think she looked gross.

If you didn't think the stunt was in keeping with the defacto rules but all the other stuff was it seems to me you are drawing a mighty fine line.

I don't draw any lines. I think it's wrong to allow Viagra or similar companies to sponsor race cars and sporting events...not legally wrong maybe, but those involved should consider that kids watch these events and may ask "Hey daddy, what's erectile dysfunction?"

I'm hardly a prude, I was helping my brother by working in his strip club during the game for gawds sake! But I think the media constantly insults us by believeing that we will buy their product if they tease us a little with some nudity etc. (yes, my bro's bar sells alcohol by having women strip, but that's a choice each patron willingly makes) I'm sick of T.V. trying to "shock" me...I can't be shocked anymore by nudity or sex.

This is about CONTROL. I turn on a sporting event to watch the sport, not the commercials or other unpredictable crap they show. By doing this "nipple thing", MTV etc took away my CONTROL of what I want me and my family to watch. As much as I love a good rack, I hope the FCC or somebody else nails their butt$ to the wall.

As far as this womans lawsuit goes, she must have a lawyer for a family member. Greedy bitch, get a clue

[Brown]

The suit has reportedly (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040210/tv_nm/media_jackson_dc_3) been withdrawn.The withdrawal notice filed in federal court on Monday said Carlin retains the right to refile the suit if self-policing by broadcasters and fines by regulators do not accomplish what she was after[.]

The notice said Carlin's law firm, Ritchie, Fels and Dillard, which was handling the case for free, was flooded with calls and mail from parents in nearly every state. It also said that she recognized that damages, had they been awarded, were likely to have been nominal given the number of potential victims -- perhaps amounting to no more than the price of a month's cable TV subscription per person.Anybody want to bet that the law firm was not handling the suit "for free?" More likely, the firm was handling on a contingent fee basis, which means the client doesn't pay any fee unless there is a recovery, or that the firm would seek attorney's fees that would not be set off against the named plaintiff's recovery. "For free," my butt.

Note that the suggested damage level was "a month's cable TV subscription per person." What a ridiculously high estimate of damages!

Also, if one month's subscription runs about fifty dollars or so, and if eighty million people were affected, then damages are four billion dollars. It's a damn good bet that the law firm would be staking claim to a billlion dollars of that. "For free," my butt!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Brown
The suit has reportedly (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040210/tv_nm/media_jackson_dc_3) been withdrawn.Anybody want to bet that the law firm was not handling the suit "for free?" More likely, the firm was handling on a contingent fee basis, which means the client doesn't pay any fee unless there is a recovery, or that the firm would seek attorney's fees that would not be set off against the named plaintiff's recovery. "For free," my butt.

Note that the suggested damage level was "a month's cable TV subscription per person." What a ridiculously high estimate of damages!

Also, if one month's subscription runs about fifty dollars or so, and if eighty million people were affected, then damages are four billion dollars. It's a damn good bet that the law firm would be staking claim to a billlion dollars of that. "For free," my butt!

You know, whenever we get some settlement in a class-action suit, which happens out of the blue on occasion for something, it usually ends up being a check for $5 with the condition that by cashing the check we waive the right to take further legal action. Of course, these are cases where actual damage has been demonstrated somewhere (often anti-trust or illegal billing), as opposed to something that just offends our sensibilities.

And they were expecting $40 each? In what universe?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by epepke
The same place, only speaking German.



God damn that was funny!:roll:

[rustypouch]

I find the whole thing quite amusing.

What I really like is that the next day the CBC showed the whole clip, uncensored, on their nationwide newclip and so far I have not heard anyone complaining about that.