Okay, lady, first of all, it’s a breast. You have two of them. You see them every day. What is wrong with our culture when a little nudity is cause for a pitchfork-and-torch mob? Are you so sexually repressed and frustrated that the sight of exposed skin revolts you to the core and urges you to make that 3 a.m. call to your therapist’s office? Switch to decaf and chill the fuck out. And exactly what damages have occured to you? Unless the breast somehow spewed napalm from your TV and horribly and irreparably disfigured you, sit down and shut up.
Second, CBS and MTV publicly apologized for the exposed breast a mere four hours after it occured. I hadn’t even gotten home from my Super Bowl party when the radio told me that the entire thing was an accident and they apologize profusely. If I give you the benefit of the doubt and you are really suing for “breach of implied contract” (which sounds like a crock of shit to me), to what end are you hoping to achieve? To teach the broadcasting company a lesson? How many times do you have to be told it was an accident?
Now suppose I don’t give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are an opportunistic, money-grubbing bitch who is taking a cheap shot at a major broadcaster to make herself independently wealthy. What possible explanation can you give for justifying this lawsuit? Are you planning on donating your millions to an orphanage, or a peace mission, or your church? Are you setting up a trust fund to increase breast cancer awareness? Are you planning on funding the next NPR three-hour snoozefest telethon? Doubtful.
So I hope you’re happy, lady. It’s people like you who inspire slews of frivolous lawsuits – people who sue McDonald’s because their coffee’s too hot, or people who go after R.J. Reynolds because they were “tricked” into believing tobacco products wouldn’t harm them. You are the lowest form of scum in our society, right down there with rapists, child molesters, and corporate executives. And moreso, I hope the judge turns you into the laughing stock of the courthouse and just for wasting their time, slaps you with a fine so large you’ll have to sell your kidneys to pay it off. Serves you right.
OK, I’m no lawyer, obviously, but anyone can file, for just about anything. For this to have a hope of reaching an actual court proceeding, however, it seems to me that the plaintiff has to show unambiguous evidence of “serious injury” of a physical nature and that the injury occurred as a direct result of viewing Janet Jackson’s breast on TV; if not, the court will likely refuse to hear the case. The general principle as I understand is that one cannot obtain monetary compensation merely for aggravation.
By contrast, the woman who got the award in McDonald’s coffee lawsuit did in fact suffer severe personal injury, and IIRC was able to demonstrate to the court that McDonald’s heated their coffee to a temperature considerably higher than a reasonable person would expect, thus posing a risk that was deemed excessive by the court.
Have you ever eaten soup or drank coffee that burned your tongue? The only difference is that this Einstein took the extra step of spilling it on her lap. She need not be rewarded for her stupidity, but was.
However, we digress. I sincerely hope you’re right and that the court will refuse to hear the case.
The woman with the lawsuit is most obviously an opportunist an an insult to common sense.
But that said I just gotta comment on:
Folks I think we may have found the one person on this planet who thought that little stunt was an accident! Congrats FoamFighter for being our winner. Show him what he’s won, Dan…
and this one
…um, which woman are you talking about? Lawsuit lady or Janet Jackson?
Other than tha Adam, I’m agreeing with your rant on opportunist and frivolous lawsuits.
Uh, Foamfighter, I’m not defending the award, which I personally think was excessive, but simply trying to show why the court considered the case at all. The case was heard because the woman was able to show that she had suffered grevious bodily harm from a McDonald’s product, and McDonald’s was penalized, in the view of the court, for contributing to the severity of that harm.
Anyway, as someone else said, this particular subject already been done. More than once.
My apologies. I’m all fired up about frivolous lawsuits at the moment, and I proceeded to explain why the McDonald’s lawsuit was a load of hokey. My mistake.
Well, you are welcome to read this comment on the McDonald’s case if you wish. It may alter your view that that particular award was completely unjustified.
Considering the way some of these Hollywood types dress… especially Janet’s brother… I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Janet normally wears underwear beaten out of old Cadillac hubcaps.
I think that we have enough Pit threads about this already. In fact, I think that we have enough threads all over the SDMB about this already. So I’m closing this latest one.
