A glittering bodysuit, a PG-13 romp in a bed, two girls kissing. All of these images have been banned from MTV's primetime lineup because of a supposed malfunction with a costume. When Justin Timberlake ripped off more than what was expected of Janet Jackson's Super Bowl costume, the world launched a super-conservative backlash. The FCC came down on Viacom, the company that owns MTV and broadcast the Super Bowl, and parents around the world screamed outrage that their children got a glimpse of a body part that they are not supposed to view until they are at least a decade older. Seven videos were bumped off of daytime hours on MTV and were only shown during late-night programming. This went on until video producers tamed the offensive content in their videos or cut it out completely. Going through each one, do we really find something that has not been on MTV primetime for at least five years now?

First, there is Britney Spears in her glittering bodysuit during her "Toxic" video. Now honestly, we have seen her in much more revealing clothing. It is a little ridiculous to get all conservative now, when for years, 13-year-old boys have been watching her bounce around in short school-girl outfits, dance in tight red bodysuits, roll around in bikinis and rip off her pin-stripe suit to reveal a nude-colored, glitterized outfit during the live MTV Video Music Awards. Let's face it, we all know what Britney's body looks like and finally deciding to pull her off primetime will just make people want her more. Luckily for her, "Toxic" is such a catchy song that this new time slot probably won't last.

Now don't get me wrong, we all know that sex sells. Having two girls make out in Blink 182's video "I Miss You" or the two lovers getting it on (with no "extreme" body parts showing, mind you) in Maroon 5's "This Love" video, is nothing new to the music industry.

We all recently witnessed Britney and Madonna lock lips and tongues at last year's Video Music Awards, and considering that gay marriages are now being performed all over, this should not be something to pick over. All the other videos that were cut, Ludacris' "Splash Waterfalls," Cassidy's "Hotel" and the Ying Yang Twins' "Saltshaker," have the general shaking-of-the-ass-area that most rap videos are known for.

There is one ban with which I do partially agree: Incubus' new video for their song, "Megalomaniac." Clips of Hitler and people drinking oil is not only something I don't want to see, but also pretty gutsy to show in our world today. I must admit, watching a bald eagle, the symbol of our country, bite off the heads of animal-people, and then in the next frame show legions of soldiers from scenes of WWII, certainly makes me lose my appetite. That video almost deserves to get booted off, except for that little bit of the Constitution called the First Amendment. The video itself is so powerful and packed with symbolism that I needed to watch it three times just to get it all. And each time, while I continued to feel sick, I felt that they were just expressing their opinions. I just wish they had done it a bit more tastefully.

As reported in a recent issue of Rolling Stone, because of the Super Bowl scandal, "CBS instituted a 5 minute tape delay for the Grammys, and now all of Viacom's broadcast properties-39 television stations, and more than 185 Infinity radio stations-are being outfitted with the same capability." Bumping Janet off the Grammys wasn't enough; they had to rub it in her face that they now need to check everything before it is released to the public.

The thing that annoys me most is that two of the hardest attackers in the fight against indecency, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich, chair of the House's Internet and telecom subcommittee and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., claim that they, as well as many other social conservatives in Congress, have a "lack of knowledge about MTV." Upton has been a high profile person in the battle to "halt potentially offensive programming." Wilson claims, "I don't have cable."

Offensive programming I can understand, but potentially offensive programming? How would they know if it was offensive to someone if they did not see it? And if it turned out to be offensive, would it really bother people enough to do something about it? Or would they just do what they probably usually do-change the channel. Just because one person feels offended by something does not mean he or she has the right to say who else will be offended by it.

If programming is deemed offensive, there is already a fine of $27,500. Now that is quite a bit of money for, say, swearing during a live awards show, like Bono did at the 2003 Golden Globes. Although the FCC let him off the hook for that incident, Michael Powell, the FCC chairman, is pushing to have that decision overruled. But then you have Upton, who is pushing to have the fine raised from that measly $27,500 to a whopping $275,000. That's a little out of hand if you ask me, even for a nipple as famous as Janet Jackson's.

In response to the aforementioned nipple, a Wall Street Journal editorial on Feb. 4 demanded MTV president Judy McGrath be fired. Now, who will this help? McGrath has been dealing with political pressure from day one and Janet's breast is not going to stop or slow her down.

MTV has always been considered controversial, and as quoted in the Rolling Stone by one MTV staffer, "They're going after us because they see us as this year's Murphy Brown with a baby. We're what they think is wrong with America." A spokesperson for MTV commented only that, "We have to pay attention to what's happening in our culture."

Well, MTV and Viacom represent what's happening in our culture today. But there are also anti-abortionists fighting to remove women's rights and people pushing for anti-homosexuality laws in a country that is supposed to embrace all people as equals. It seems that attacking the entertainment world shouldn't be so high of a priority right now.