Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Maybe club's point is that we would all be better off if this were treated as a strict liability offense. CBS gets nailed, and it can fight with MTV, Jackson and Timberlake about who ultimately bears the liability, presumably a question of the contracts between them all.

The problem with strict liability is that unknowing violations always get over-penalized, while knowing ones are under-penalized.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Maybe club's point is that we would all be better off if this were treated as a strict liability offense. CBS gets nailed, and it can fight with MTV, Jackson and Timberlake about who ultimately bears the liability, presumably a question of the contracts between them all.

Club's point is why should the government be involved at all? For those of you who don't believe in the efficiency of markets, take a look at the myriad of reports as to how many angry calls/letters CBS received as a result of this.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Dude, if I overreached, I'm willing to admit it, but I'm not admitting anything based on "I heard Bolten say it was kosher at a press conference." Link me to something so I can see what he said myself. I wouldn't buy a used car from that man, and I take it you wouldn't either.

Apparently no one has transcribed the press conference yet. I looked but couldn't find.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The problem with strict liability is that unknowing violations always get over-penalized, while knowing ones are under-penalized.

If you know ex ante that you will get nailed for an unknowing violation just as several as if you knew, you can contract around that by allocating the risk to those who can make sure there's no violation at all.

Club -- the government is involved because it is not possible to have individually-negotiated contracts between CBS and all of its potential viewers, and because tort law is too clumsy to be used.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Maybe club's point is that we would all be better off if this were treated as a strict liability offense. CBS gets nailed, and it can fight with MTV, Jackson and Timberlake about who ultimately bears the liability, presumably a question of the contracts between them all.

Putting aside whatever the maximum fines are for airing a pierced nipple during primetime and who bears the liability for such a thing and pesky concepts like prior restraints, I think the most creative and effective punishment for all involved would be to forbid Viacom and its subsidiaries to air Ms. Jackson and Mr. Timberlake products. Loss of revenue for however much those products generate, and loss of a media for the offending actors to take advantage.

Frankly, I think there's going to be a lot of huffing and puffing about the whole thing, but ultimately CBS will pay the fine and that will be the end of it.

Wasn't there a riot in Nigeria last year when models were too scantly clad in a beauty pagent?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you know ex ante that you will get nailed for an unknowing violation just as several as if you knew, you can contract around that by allocating the risk to those who can make sure there's no violation at all.

You miss the point. I meant unknowing in the minds of the ultimate actors, not in the upstreamers. If JT actually merely screwed up and grabbed too hard, the penalty overall should be lower than if JT and JJ planned it all along.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
You miss the point. I meant unknowing in the minds of the ultimate actors, not in the upstreamers. If JT actually merely screwed up and grabbed too hard, the penalty overall should be lower than if JT and JJ planned it all along.

If you want to think about it a criminal sort of thing, OK. But I don't. Give JT and the wardrobe mechanics the right incentive to make sure things don't malfunction.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Club -- the government is involved because it is not possible to have individually-negotiated contracts between CBS and all of its potential viewers, and because tort law is too clumsy to be used.

I don't get this? My point was that that the market is a sufficient mechanism to incentivize broadcasters from not doing this. I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that viewers have suffered some sort of harm?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It's part of their mandate -- and surely even small-government folks would agree that we need a federal regulator to enforce standards in licensing for the public airwaves.

S_A_M

I'm glad to see your tongue, which was wagging after the half-time show, is back in your cheek.

The investigation is worth it only if it costs less than the amount of fines actually collected.

Right now, all it means is that the super bowl halftime show will be added to the list of things shown on seven second delay.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan


Wasn't there a riot in Nigeria last year when models were too scantly clad in a beauty pagent?

Yes, they dared to wear bathing suits.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't get this? My point was that that the market is a sufficient mechanism to incentivize broadcasters from not doing this. I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that viewers have suffered some sort of harm?

The FCC enforces restrictions on prurient content because the people, in their wisdom, have decided that some sorts of things ought not be aired, even if market forces say otherwise.

Suppose, though, that things were otherwise. As a matter of law, anything goes. But CBS tells people that it's not going to show naked breasts on its programming. So people who are opposed to that sort of thing tune in, and let their kids watch. And then they see more than they want to. Tort law doesn't really help you at that point. I suppose you think that viewers will retaliate against the advertisers, or the network, but, if it's an accident, why? Unclear that the market will produce optimum results in that situation.

Burger: I believe the half-time show was on a seven-second delay. Someone was asleep at the switch.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't get this? My point was that that the market is a sufficient mechanism to incentivize broadcasters from not doing this. I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that viewers have suffered some sort of harm?

According to a friend of mine who works at MTV and didn't leave until 9:00 last night because of all of the irate callers, there are a lot of viewers who think that they have suffered some sort of harm. She thinks Timberlake did it on purpose to fuck with her personally.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you saying that viewers have suffered some sort of harm?

Isn't that sort of presumed by decency standards and all? Think of the children. The Children!

One thing that seems not to have been mentioned, and I've yet to hear an explanation, is that JT was a late add to the show, or so we were led to believe. The show was advertised as JJ, Nelly, Kid Rock, and P-Diddy. There were rumors late in the week that a special surprise guest would be added, but I was told, less than 3 hours to kickoff, by a league source that it was still only 90% certain.

Now, if JT was, in fact, late to teh show (so to speak), how would MTV, or CBS, or even the NFL, have been aware of even the possibility of this bodice-ripper by watching rehearsals?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Say goodnight, Howard.

What about Sharpton, who still got only 10% in SC, despite campaigning there all week. Or is he just in it for the free food?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

Burger: I believe the half-time show was on a seven-second delay. Someone was asleep at the switch.

How did they explain Bono at the Grammys. Also asleep?

But maybe they figured once kid rock was done, it was safe to grab a coke.