M.I.A.’s Super Bowl gesture adds fuel to Supreme Court indecency case
Sundays Super Bowl evoked a bit of outragenot just among dejected New England Patriots fans, but also among viewers who took offense to British singer M.I.A.s crude gesture.
February 07, 2012 at 06:12 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Sunday's Super Bowl evoked a bit of outrage—not just among dejected New England Patriots fans, but also among viewers who took offense to British singer M.I.A.'s crude gesture.
During this year's halftime show, which according to the Neilsen Co. was the most-watched halftime entertainment show ever with 111.3 million viewers, the notoriously controversial M.I.A. flashed her middle finger to the camera while performing with the pop legend Madonna.
The incident brought back memories of the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, which featured singer Janet Jackson's now-infamous “wardrobe malfunction.” At the end of her performance with musical artist Justin Timberlake, Timberlake “accidentally” tore off a piece of Jackson's costume, briefly exposing her breast to more than 90 million TV viewers. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fined broadcaster CBS and its affiliates $550,000 for violating its indecency policy. But on Nov. 2, 2011, the 3rd Circuit threw out the FCC's fine, saying the agency improperly penalized CBS for violating a previously unannounced policy.
Early last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments for a similar case (FCC v. Fox Television Stations), which centers on expletives that celebrities Cher and Nicole Richie uttered during the live broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards in 2002 and 2003, respectively. The FCC found Fox liable for airing the indecent programming.
Experts say the high court's Fox decision, which is expected by June, should determine whether the FCC's indecency standards, which prohibit broadcasters from airing fleeting expletives or images between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., are unconstitutionally vague. According to the Wall Street Journal, the court is likely to uphold the agency's regulation of broadcast indecency.
NBC stations, which aired this year's Super Bowl, could face fines of up to $325,000 each for showing M.I.A.'s gesture.
Sunday's Super Bowl evoked a bit of outrage—not just among dejected New England Patriots fans, but also among viewers who took offense to British singer M.I.A.'s crude gesture.
During this year's halftime show, which according to the Neilsen Co. was the most-watched halftime entertainment show ever with 111.3 million viewers, the notoriously controversial M.I.A. flashed her middle finger to the camera while performing with the pop legend Madonna.
The incident brought back memories of the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, which featured singer Janet Jackson's now-infamous “wardrobe malfunction.” At the end of her performance with musical artist Justin Timberlake, Timberlake “accidentally” tore off a piece of Jackson's costume, briefly exposing her breast to more than 90 million TV viewers. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fined broadcaster CBS and its affiliates $550,000 for violating its indecency policy. But on Nov. 2, 2011, the 3rd Circuit threw out the FCC's fine, saying the agency improperly penalized CBS for violating a previously unannounced policy.
Early last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments for a similar case (FCC v. Fox Television Stations), which centers on expletives that celebrities Cher and Nicole Richie uttered during the live broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards in 2002 and 2003, respectively. The FCC found Fox liable for airing the indecent programming.
Experts say the high court's Fox decision, which is expected by June, should determine whether the FCC's indecency standards, which prohibit broadcasters from airing fleeting expletives or images between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., are unconstitutionally vague. According to the Wall Street Journal, the court is likely to uphold the agency's regulation of broadcast indecency.
NBC stations, which aired this year's Super Bowl, could face fines of up to $325,000 each for showing M.I.A.'s gesture.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 2Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 3Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 4Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
- 5Burr & Forman, Smith Gambrell & Russell Promote More to Partner This Year
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250