Censorship: Alright, I'm finally going to say something about the halftime show.

Nhan, this week's guest blogger at ::Freespace:: posted a cute and link-intensive post that represents what pretty much all Janet's defenders are saying.

"You think that's bad? Don't you know what else is on TV?"

Among the shows he touts as being worse than Janet is What Not to Wear , appropriate because in this case, there was something Janet should have worn.

But the reality is, his post is griping about what TV is teaching, and those upset about the halftime show are griping about what Janet actually did.

What's the difference?

Nobody anywhere would tell you that you couldn't stand around in Central Park discussing the positive aspects of nudity. You could stand on a table and make a call to all mankind to live a nudist lifestyle, and the first amendment says you can say it. You have the right to teach and say whatever you want.

But if you actually start taking off your clothes, you and law enforcement will have a problem.

It's the same way with television. The FCC should never step in and stop anybody from teaching anything they want on TV. That's what the first amendment protects, whether anybody likes it or not.

However, broadcast channels are public, and therefore they should be treated like public places. That's why the FCC has the right to interfere with what's actually done on TV. If you can't do it in a public park, then the FCC has the right to get involved if you do it on TV.

Now this gets into a hairy area. For instance, you can't kill anybody in a public park, but it's probably okay to do it on TV. This is largely because the violence on TV is simulated, therefore nothing really wrong is done. It would be like faking a killing in central park. The cops would think you were weird, but you wouldn't go to jail for murder.

But what about sex? Isn't that simulated on TV, too?

But remember, the couple in the park isn't being arrested for having sex. They're getting arrested for a lewd public display. No actual sex has to take place to meet that criteria.

And again, this law would probably be applied differently in Central Park than in, say, a bad part of some seedy neighborhood.

In this case, the Superbowl is the equivalent of Central Park on the first day of summer.

This doesn't apply to cable channels. Those are like private residences or clubs. You have to pay to get in.

But for broadcast channels, public decency laws apply. Sex, swearing, the whole shebang.

The first amendment covers you if you talk about something that's wrong. It even covers you if you advocate something that's wrong. But it doesn't cover you if you actually do something wrong.

And I think it's really obvious that in this case, Janet wasn't covered.

Ergo?: As for what do about Janet, I think the answer is simple. Take whatever was done to the third quarter streaker, divide it by the number of people who saw him, and then multiply it by the number of people who saw Janet.