The whole "Jackson affair" is convoluted because of the way the US government regulates the media. Â Way back when the FCC was set up, there was only one way to get a mass signal out to people: over the airwaves. Â And the frequencies available for use, given the technologies of the time, were much more limited than they are today. Â So the government stepped in and claimed that the airwaves were in effect "owned" by the public and thus broadcast rights should be strictly controlled -- by the government, of course. Â So in order to broadcast, you had to have a license, and you had to show that what you were doing was somehow in "the public good." Now, the FCC regulated, at least in theory, what you could actually show. Â For the most part, this wasn't an issue because the networks didn't want to push the envelope. Â And they eagerly welcomed a censorship they never really had to feel in order to enjoy tightly controlled access to their industry, which kept competitors out. Â Basically, they got something for nothing. Â Great deal. This system is now archaic, to say nothing of whether it ever made sense in the first place. Â With the rise of cable and satellites and the Internet, it really makes no sense, as those mediums are not regulated by the FCC -- only broadcast is. Â But the FCC soldiers on all the same. Â And the same networks that used to self-regulate with a merciless vigor now act as though epater les bourgeois is not only an original, recent idea, but a moral duty. Anyway, I suppose I could concede that what the FCC is censorship, although I have my doubts about that. Â One thing I left out of my earlier definition is the important concept: No prior restraint. Â That governened American censorship law for centuries. Â That aside, there certainly are plenty of outlets for Janet to show her hooters, even if the bluenoses at the FCC won't let her do it on CBS.