A punishment is useless if it has no effect on the punished.

The Federal Communications Commission imposed a $550,000 fine on Viacom Inc. on Wednesday for the brief display of Janet Jackson's breast during the Super Bowl halftime show last February.

The FCC justified the fine by saying that no television show has ever received as many complaints from the American public as did the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show. CBS previously had shown interest in challenging the fine, saying that they didn't believe anything in the broadcast - other than a bared breast, presumably - violated indecency laws. Another objection voiced was that other aspects of the halftime show received viewer complaints for being lewd and inappropriate, yet warranted no fines and little FCC attention.

It may be one of the largest fines in FCC history, but $550K is just a drop in the bucket to a media giant like Viacom Inc. If the FCC wanted to satisfy angry viewers and punish the network, which would effectively be the warranted response given their justifications for punishment, they could have at least done something that would make them feel remorseful for what they've done.

Instead of simply punishing the network, the commission should punish everyone that was involved in the event, including superstars like Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. Viewers also should ask themselves what defines offensive television; is it more offensive to see a murder on prime-time television or a body part that never did any harm to anyone? Jackson's seconds-long flash simply is not one of the most offensive broadcasts in network television history. It's time the FCC and hypersensitive viewers assessed what an offensive image really is. A beheading, for instance.

If the FCC won't fine violators in a way that will prevent them from repeating the alleged offense, it's a waste of time. CBS executives aren't the ones who need to reorganize their priorities. The FCC should.