second source from a comic ( you know why )
Aol is demanding it's sponsorship money back, the rules for live broadcasting are being changed and now a bank worker is suing for billions for "outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury"
Was this due to some terrible act of such dastardly evil as to cause society to collapse?
It's because of the Janet Jackson superbowl perfomance.
I have only seen the highlighted version (ending) but as far as i could tell one would have needed a tv 24 feet across to be able to see anything in any detail whatsoever, in fact the media had to zoom in with enlargements to see anything at all.
My question is not really about the morals of the incident rather questioning the motives behind the backlash. To me it seems all about making or saving money.
Aol will regain $5 million but will not have lost any of its publicity advertising and as for the bank worker suing...well just how much damage could have been done ? after all we all have bodies and i don't think the human form is "evil".
i am not advocating a free for all uncontrolled open media where the bounds of taste should go unchecked but in this case i feel that (forgive the pun) a mountain is being made out of a molehill