ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Freedom to Differ

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

International Law

: Freedom to Differ

YouTubers decide for themselves: are Charlotte Ross's buttocks both shocking and titillating?

ADVERTISEMENTS

WebProNews explains how the FCC Sends YouTubers Searching For Butt Scene:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) thought long and hard about whether Charlotte Ross's buttocks were both shocking and titillating. Five years later, they've decided they were indeed, and are fining 52 ABC stations $1.4 million.

Or $27,500 per Central and Mountain time zone station that presented Ms. Ross's derriere before 10 PM.

In case you missed the February 25, 2003 pre-Nipplegate episode on its first run, the news of the FCC's indecency fine has spurred millions to check it out on YouTube. If YouTube deletes it for fear of copyright infringement, likely it'll pop up again from other users.

If not, the Parents Television Council, who made the initial complaint and who hates any type of raunchiness on TV, has a clip of the raunchiness on their website, along with lots of other titillating and shocking clips.

It's a good thing, too, because you'd likely have forgotten how appalling it was after five years. And kids that missed it the first time around are surely to see it now, and learn how to be appalled as well.

The FCC, a group of taxpayer-funded grownups who refer to certain unutterable terms as "the s-word" and the like, used some of that taxpayer money to issue a 16-page report officially declaring a semi-nude woman on television indecent. Luckily, the taxpayers will get that money back via the money ABC now owes them, and which will cover other unsuccessful investigations into new words like "hamsterbating."

The 16-page proposal is a must read for entertainment buffs, as the FCC fends off ABC's argument that views of Ross's nude body from the back and side were not "lewd, prurient, pandering, or titillating." But the FCC declared that not only was the scene "shocking and titillating," but also that the camera lingered on her buttocks and returned to them.

(And if you're quick and extra-pervy, you can almost see her whats-it.)

Read more here (including an intelligent discussion of the issues of the case).  But more importantly, here is the clip of Charlotte Ross's buttocks, so you too can decide:

Full post as published by Freedom to Differ on February 04, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0185 secs (new cache)