Boobs on TV! Well, just a “fleeting” moment of boobs and butt, and the FCC was ready slap ABC with a hefty 1.2 million fine over it—but no more, says the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan! The court ruled that the brief nudity falls under the same ruling it made in July regarding “fleeting expletives,” so no one will be paying up for that half a second of saucy nakedness.
The nudity in question occurred during a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue, during which star Charlotte Ross’ shower escapades lead to a moment of brief nudity (nipples apparently disguised by another NYPD Blue star’s ears. Who knew a human head fit so well between a woman’s breasts?) The court’s been tied up over the case pretty much since the episode aired, and what a lucky happenstance it is that the climax finally reached its peak soon after the appeals court said that Bono uttering “fucking brilliant” during an awards show is no different than Charlotte Ross’ stimulating unclothed figure.
During the ruling in July, the court decided that the FCC deciding what can and cannot be said on TV was “arbitrary and capricious" and “unconstitutionally vague,” not to mention a violation of free speech. But, according to AV Club, this will most likely not lead to more naked action on TV because the FCC likes to sue people, and ABC already spent eight years talking about one butt they showed; so most likely fear of what the FCC might do will continue to affect what gets shown on network television.
The nudity in question occurred during a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue, during which star Charlotte Ross’ shower escapades lead to a moment of brief nudity (nipples apparently disguised by another NYPD Blue star’s ears. Who knew a human head fit so well between a woman’s breasts?) The court’s been tied up over the case pretty much since the episode aired, and what a lucky happenstance it is that the climax finally reached its peak soon after the appeals court said that Bono uttering “fucking brilliant” during an awards show is no different than Charlotte Ross’ stimulating unclothed figure.
During the ruling in July, the court decided that the FCC deciding what can and cannot be said on TV was “arbitrary and capricious" and “unconstitutionally vague,” not to mention a violation of free speech. But, according to AV Club, this will most likely not lead to more naked action on TV because the FCC likes to sue people, and ABC already spent eight years talking about one butt they showed; so most likely fear of what the FCC might do will continue to affect what gets shown on network television.
Comments