I’ve had so many young ones research Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” for media law that I’ve created a pathfinder on it. I’m still waiting for the West book, “Wardrobe Malfunctions in a Nutshell.” Try searching LN Academic: Legal reviews for “Janet Jackson” w/p indecen!. This search currently retrieved 85 documents. There are some clever titles to distinguish one from another. How about Lindsey LaVine’s, “The Lion, the Witch (hunt) and the wardrobe malfunction: Congress’s crackdown on television indecency” (DePaul University Journal of Art and Entertainment Law, Spring, 2005, 15 DePaul-LCA J. Art & Ent. L. 385). Or how about Brian J. Rooder’s, “Broadcast Indecency regulation in the era of the ‘wardrobe malfunction’: has the FCC grown too big for its britches?” (November 2005, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 871). B. Chad Bungard wins the prize with, “Indecent Exposure: An economic approach to removing the boob from the tube,” (Spring 2006, 13 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 195). Who said law review articles must be dull?
The news on the W.M. is back. According to the AP, the “Court tosses FCC ‘wardrobe malfunction’ fine,” by Joann Loviglio. She writes:
The court [3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] said the FCC deviated from its nearly 30-year practice of fining indecent broadcast programming only when it was so “pervasive as to amount to ’shock treatment’ for the audience.”
The AP article includes a variety of opinions from Duke U prof. Stuart Benjamin, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, & Tim Winter of the Parents Television Council. It includes a link to the decision of CBS Corporation v. FCC, 06-3575, 9/11/07, filed 7/21/08 (in pdf format). It can also be accessed on the “Recent Precedential Opinions” page of the court for 30 days.
The PTC is particularly mad. They want to petition for S. 1780 (pdf from GPO) Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act. According to the “Major Actions” in Thomas Legislative, it was introduced to the Senate on 7/12/07.
Can’t wait for a new batch of cleverly titled law review articles.
