www.lawpsided.com
Janet Jackson Lawsuit Is Very RevealingA "Nasty" lawsuitby Sean Carter On Super Bowl Sunday, Janet Jackson did more than reveal her right breast. She revealed that many Americans are as shallow as the Bush family gene pool. Within minutes, the CBS switchboard was flooded with calls from people claiming that they were shocked, amazed and aghast over the one-second shot of Jackson’s breast. Of course, in America, simply outrage and disgust are never enough. They must be followed by a class action lawsuit. In this case, it took only three days for a Tennessee lawyer to file a class action on behalf of the estimated 97 million people who watched the Super Bowl. In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that Jackson’s “extreme and outrageous conduct” has caused them to suffer “outrage, anger, embarrassment, and serious injury.” Yes, serious injury. After all, we all know that exposure to a right breast is the fourth leading cause of death in America, just behind heart disease, cancer and eating at McDonald’s. In short, the plaintiffs claim that Jackson’s performance violated broadcast decency standards. Of course, I think we would all have to agree that broadcast decency is as much of an oxymoron as reliable Iraqi intelligence. As far as I’m concerned, we threw out the concept of broadcast decency in 2000 when we all flocked to the television to watch a fat, middle-aged, gay man parade around in the nude on the first season of "Survivor." Besides, when did the human body become “indecent,” particularly, a human body in the shape of Janet Jackson’s? I will admit that I’ve never been much of a Janet fan but I am one now. Her Super Bowl picture now serves as the wallpaper on my PC. In fact, if I can get my wife to go for it, her picture will serve as the wallpaper in our bedroom as well. Of course, I understand that not everyone is as morally debased as I am, and many people were genuinely offended by the halftime show. In fact, according to the plaintiffs, not only were they offended but they were defamed. The plaintiffs assert that the worldwide audience now views Americans less favorably. And as a result of the universal disgust of the Zimbabwe people, we have all been damaged. According to our attorney friend in Tennessee, this damage has been substantial -- $75 billion worth. No, that is not a typo. The plaintiffs in this case are asking for damages of up to three times the defendants’ gross revenue last year. One of the defendants, Viacom, reported almost $25 billion in revenue last year alone. If the plaintiffs are successful, then each viewer will be entitled to approximately $750 in damages. Of course, unless you are a humor columnist, this is not a lot of money. However, $750 is a pretty good payday for the “imposition” of being forced to look at a partially nude woman as beautiful as Jackson. In fact, to date, I’ve never been paid a single dime to look at a nude woman. If the truth is to be told, it’s actually been the other way around. What was I thinking? Seriously, I understand that Janet Jackson was wrong and that well-meaning people have been offended. But really, it should stop there. Our court system needs another frivolous lawsuit about as badly as I need for my wife to read this column. ________________________________ Sean is a practicing attorney who writes a weekly humor column on current legal events called "Lawpsided." Lawpsided pieces appear in a growing number of general circulation papers across the country, including The Los Angeles Times. Moreover, his musings on the law appear on nationally recognized websites, such as jewishworldreview.com, findlaw.com, newsmax.com and etherzone.com, and legal publications, such as The National Law Journal and The Los Angeles Daily Journal. Lastly, he is a regular contributor to national magazines like Razor and Tirade. If you would be interested in publishing this piece or seeing other samples of his work, please feel free to contact him by e-mail, by phone at (626) 786-2095, or through his website at:
|