Debate: who controled the super bowl tits?

[Marxist ßastard]

Yup...

 

The Nipple Shield!

[Breton Thief Oriana]

for all the people, including moderators, answering this with spam: I dont care that she showed her tits. i just want some opinions on who set it up.

[NCBeachBum]

That wasn't nipple ring, it was a pastie. She has now released a statement admitting that her and Timberlake planned this after all the rehearsals were over, without the knowledge of CBS, MTV, or the NFL. And while I do understand why people watching with their children at 8:00 PM ET would be offended that she pulled the stunt at a time when so many children are still awake and watching television, it was one tit with a pastie, is it really worth a week's worth of conniption fits? It was a stupid, cheap publicity by 2 people whose career paths are in a definite downward slide. The best thing for anyone offended to do is to continue to ignore them and let the slide continue.

[Ancalagon]

I personally think it was set up by MTV and Jackson. I mean, come on, the whole half-time show was a giant promotion for her new record coming out and MTV airs all of her videos...it doesn't get anymore obvious than that. And her nipple showing was obviously rehersed. She's just taking the fall for MTV because she can afford to take on the criticism, MTV can't.

 

MTV is a corporation, and it promotes fashions and things that are fashionable for teens, and if MTV took the fall that would be a huge blemish on the corporation's image. Then it would lose THOUSANDS of viewers because the average American would consider it 'reading material'. (Though with 90% of the s*** that is on American TV, it seems a tad hypocritical to say the least.)

 

So, my opinon: Janet and Timberlake are the patsies who are taking the fall for MTV since they are artists, and can afford to do so. It won't ruin their reputation as much as it would MTV's.

[TheDeadTree]

America was founded by everyones favorite sticks in the mud: the puritans. And hundreds of years later we still have trouble shaking most of those values.

 

Now did I find "the breast" offensive? A little. I didn't want to see it, nor actively persued an oppurtunity to. But did I or anyone I know flip out about it destroying our moral values, nah. I think, yes, it was a publicity stunt. And also I think using that kind of behavior for shock value is kind of deplorable, but whose to say what is deplorable television will be another ten years. You delightful Europeans apparently already have such kind of tv over the pond and haven't descended into madness yet.

[hundinman]

I personally think that she set it up with MTV. I reacted badly at first but know, I could care less. Anyway, she denied having it planned with MTV right? Well, they have a hell of a lot more money than she does and they could sue her a** off if she admited that MTV knew about it. She would be put out of business in a day.

All MTV has to do is tell her that if she reveals that they knew about it, her carreer with MTV is over. And then they will still sue her.

 

My theory.

[Peregrine]

Sue her for what? You can't just decide to sue someone because you don't like what they say. MTV would have to prove in court that her accusations were both false and damaging, or that she signed a contract not to reveal the information. Without this proof, MTV has no case.

 

 

But anyway, I doubt MTV was involved. Look at how much more impressive they could have made it, if they're going for shock value. MTV could easily have had a crowd of naked women on stage if they wanted to. They could easily have arranged for her to lose all her clothes.

[hundinman]

Sue her for what? You can't just decide to sue someone because you don't like what they say. MTV would have to prove in court that her accusations were both false and damaging, or that she signed a contract not to reveal the information. Without this proof, MTV has no case.

 

 

But anyway, I doubt MTV was involved. Look at how much more impressive they could have made it, if they're going for shock value. MTV could easily have had a crowd of naked women on stage if they wanted to. They could easily have arranged for her to lose all her clothes.

In America, you can sue anybody for whatever you want. It does not mean that you will win the case, but it is legal. If MTV did have a naked women on stage they would risk being sued themselves by every TV channel broadcasting the superbowl, NFL itself, and aome sponsors that they currently have. So, telling her not to reaveal their part in it could very well work. They may have had her sign a contract that said she would not tell, However we need not worry about it to much because we still do not know if MTV even had a part at all.

[Peregrine]

Exactly, you can try to sue anyone you want. But if you sue without a justifiable case, you get your lawsuit dismissed.

 

And MTV (if they were involved at all) took the same risk with what they did. There's a (absolutely stupid and pointless waste of money) government investigation and threats of massive fines. They'd be stuck with the exact same problem, except that they would have more shock value.

[NCBeachBum]

Exactly, you can try to sue anyone you want. But if you sue without a justifiable case, you get your lawsuit dismissed.

 

Lol, that's funny. Let's recap 3 high profile lawsuits I can remember from the last 10 years that have won large settlements.

First, a woman got a cup of coffee at the McDonald's drivethru, placed it between her legs while she drove, had to hit the brakes too quickly, squished the cup and got a lap full of coffee. She then sued McDonald's saying the coffee was TOO HOT! and was awarded $3 million. All drivethru windows now have a sign warning that the coffee is served hot. (On a side note, I've done the identical same thing twice before she did, and never sued anyone..... I figgered it was my own fool fault for driving with a cup of coffee between my legs)

Second exhibit: A woman at a fast food restaurant(I forget which one) goes to the bathroom, places her feet on either side of the seat, squats to urinate, slips, falls, and breaks her arm. She sued on the grounds that the porcelain she was standing on was too slick to be safe. The restaurant's argument that it was meant to be sat on, not stood on, came to no avail, and the woman was awarded an amount in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Third exhibit: A man bought a brand new Winnebago motor home. On the way home, he got on the interstate, set the cruise control to 70 MPH, and went in the back to make a pot of coffee. The vehicle left the road and flipped before crashing. His suit was on the grounds that the manual didn't specifically say you couldn't leave the controls while on cruise control. He was awarded a brand new replacement motor home plus $1.75 million. The manual now carries a disclaimer that you cannot do this.

Obviously, you no longer have to have a justifiable case to win many in the American court system.

But that being said, I don't believe CBS or MTV knew about this stunt, simply because they know how much of a witch hunt the FCC is already on about the live broadcast shows, ever since that Hilton girl and Lionel Richie's daughter dropped a few F-bombs at a recent awards show(November, I think?), and there is no way that they would knowingly do something guaranteed to get them investigated and heavily fined. If there's anything Hollywood executives know how to do, it's to cover their assets.