04 May 2009

What? Seriously?

Every night there's murder and mayhem in news and entertainment, punctuated by ads about erections, bigger wieners, bush whackers, and lube. Criminy, I saw Dennis Franz's bare fat ass waddle across my Trinitron in primetime — deliberately. I saw Julie Andrews' boobs during a 60 Minutes segment. I dunno, maybe it was 20/20. 
Anyway, one Superbowl, with a viewership of 8,864,000, produced a nip slip for 9/16 of a second, and 540,000 people complain — meaning that a fleeting glimpse of a boob offended 6% of all possible viewers of a show where people have tuned in to see giant dudes in skintight pants grapple and beat the hell out of each other. And let's face it — most of the complaints were filed by prudes who sought out grainy grabs on the intarwebs the next day. Apparently 85% of the complaints arrived via form letter, and one delicate individual complained 37 times. Was the song and performance pretty tasteless and inappropriate for the venue? Sure, yeah. Was anyone injured? Hell, no
Of all the spectacularly fucked up stuff going on, manufactured outrage over Justin Timberlake exposing Janet Jackson's nipple five years ago, and Bono's dropping an F bomb at the Golden Globes is the sort of compelling First Amendment issue the Supreme Court of the United States feels it must address?
It. Caused. No. Actual. Harm. 
Simply being upset by something seen on TV is not actionable, and SCOTUS shouldn't pretend it is just to accommodate the delicate sensibilities of some godbothering bitches who wish it to be.
People act like watching TV is compulsory.

1 chimed in:

J9 said...

If TV weren't mandatory, how would all the sheeple know what to be outraged at?