From my dusty recollection I agree with KarmaComa Yayo is slang for coke. I think the term was also used in ScarFace, but I’m not entirely sure…
Yes. And Canadians never have anything controversial to say. Ever.
I’m not sure I agree with that, Ginger. But I might. It sure sounds good. Let me check out what my neighbours think, and I’ll see if we can come to a consensus. 
It said “Soy Bomb.”
I’m still waiting for an explanation of the “blurring” that has been reported.
Note that the performance pics in toadspittle’s first yahoo links do not show the same clothing at all as in the later yahoo link.
If there was no message at all, why the blurring???
I too was impressed with the technological aspect of this blurring effect. It followed her chest nearly perfectly, with only her pendant being obscured by it. You really had to pay close attention to even notice the effect – not that I stare at the young lady’s chest, of course 
. The way the blur effect followed her around without interfering with other parts of the picture was really remarkable. In hockey, they used to put a sensor in the puck so that the TV people could highlight the puck as it moved across the ice. Avril’s blurring seems to be sort of the same thing. Maybe someone slipped a tracking device into her bra. Maybe I shouldn’t be thinking about this so much…
Maybe she just has naturally blurry breasts?
Maybe it was done so that people would have something to talk about afterwords. Honestly, does anyone care about the Grammys at all? All I know is that for 30 years my mom has been kicking herself for not seeing Simon & Garfunkel, and now they may be going on tour again, so she’s amped. When the highlight of the night was that a long-defunct duo may, or may not, be having a reunion, I say it’s time for them to change things. Next year, have Marylin Manson and Zak de la Rocha host, and have the thing directed by Michael Moore, who will also conduct interviews before and after…people will watch that. I know I would.
So far as I can tell by looking at the AP, Reuters and digging up some Getty Photogaphs at http://www.newsmakers.com, there is absolutely nothing on her shirt. I haven’t seen the video coverage, but I would be absolutely stunned if two wires and an agency are all in some vast conspiracy to smudge out whatever political message an 18-year-old Canadian may have on her shirt. It’s good to be somewhat skeptical, but to smudge out something on a news photograph without remark is so unethical that it wouldn’t be worth the credibility risk.
Maybe she wasn’t wearing a bra, and was displaying too much nipplage?
Um… I just looked at the pics in toadspittle’s posts and …really, I don’t see any censorial blurring. Just less-that-perfect resolution.
Could this have been an “artifact” of video-cam resolution/polarization + lighting + a textured/reflective pattern on her shirts? Sort of like some neckties or shirts turn “shimmery” on camera though they are perfectly fine to the naked eye?
Yes, JR I believe that is exactly what it is. There’s no way Getty or the wires would blur out there pictures without a remark in the caption info. I’ve seen plenty of photographs on the wires with nudity, profanity and the such…
I wouldn’t be surprised if the small still photo’s questionable blur was just an artifact. But the news reports indicate that the network cut to a reverse shot of her when she threw open her shirt, for fear that she would have a message.
I have enough faith in our fellow dopers to tell the difference between video blurring and interference patterns, glare, etc., esp. since she just had a plain white T-shirt on. So it seems likely that the video blurring did, in fact, take place.