Would The FCC Deny Your License Because....You Used The Word "Redskin"?

That's what George Washington University professor John Banzhaf has up his sleeve as he continues on his mission to force Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to change the name of his team. As everyone in America knows, Snyder has refused to buckle to the public pressure to change the name of his NFL team. Banzhaf tells Broadcasting and Cable he's considering going to the FCC to challenge the licenses of Red Zebra Broadcasting, which Snyder owns (Red Zebra has seven stations). Banzhaf also tells B&C that he's considering advising other radio stations in markets where there are a significant number of Indians that their license renewals will be challenged if they continue to use "Redskins" on their air. When he was asked by writer John Eggerton why the FCC would deny a license based on his argument, here's what he had to say...

More...

Banzhaf is also the guy responsible for the ban on cigarette advertising.

It's none of his business, and frankly, if he thinks Redskins is racist, he's a moron. But goodness knows what's going through the commissioners' heads at any given moment...

JoshTheRadioDude said:

It's none of his business, and frankly, if he thinks Redskins is racist, he's a moron. But goodness knows what's going through the commissioners' heads at any given moment...

Click to expand...

Indeed! There are far too many Native Americans who take great pride in how the name "Redskins" honors the warrior spirit of Indian Culture. From what I've gathered from hearing Native Americans express themselves on this issue, it is only the "Uncle Tomahawks" who seek to suppress Native American culture that claim that the name "Redskins" is offensive.

That would be funny if it were at all an accurate comparison. Truth of the matter is that most Native Americans don't care about this at all (including those I know personally). This is entirely a politically correct campaign for no reason other than to force everyone to conform to the ridiculous standard of banishing everything that might be in the slightest way offensive to anyone at all. Well, guess what? Nobody has a right not to be offended. There are things in this world that are offensive to one person or another, and some of them for reasons that aren't offensive at all (like the name "Redskins"). One of these days, these idiots are going to run out of even the pseudo-legitimate things they're rallying against now, and they'll start turning on each other. Because that's what these people do: they feel, out of guilt over things they've never once done themselves, that they have to apologize for any and everything that remotely resembles something offensive throughout the course of history, to the point of rewriting history to something that doesn't even come close to making sense and attacking anyone who disagrees with them to the point of attempting to destroy them financially. It's one giant exercise in stupidity and futility. Don't go along with it, you'll only ruin yourself in the end.

Professor Banzhaf said, "In each case the underlying legal theory would be based upon what happened with the challenge I helped put together in the early 1970s to the license renewal of a major DC TV station."

What he doesn't say is that in no case did the FCC deny any licenses based on his group's actions. In fact, there were no ACTUAL threats to licenses. There was just a perception of license denial, which, at the time, was enough for licensee to make changes.

One of his proposals is: "Petition the FCC to Issue a Policy Statement [similar to its earlier drug policy statement (Public Notice 71-205)] about Hateful Racist Words in General, and/or 'Redskins' Specifically."

Notice that the drug policy statement was made over 40 years ago. It was a statement, not a rule. Two very different things. The FCC isn't going to deny a license for not following a statement.

Another proposal is: "Petition the FCC [file a Petition for Rulemaking] for a New Rule Restricting the On-Air Use of Words Which Are Highly Derogatory, Racist, and Hateful to Ethnic and Other Groups.

He has no example or precedent for this new rule. In fact we can all think of words that might qualify, but none have been officially banned by any rule that I'm aware of. In the meantime, the courts have thrown out the FCC's obscenity rules, calling them "capricious" and without consistency.

There's no doubt the Professor and his students can create annoying and time consuming threats to stations, as they have in the past. But history has demonstrated that they are idle threats, without any real merit, and a smart lawyer could end up reversing the suits in a way that could cost Banzhaf, his class, and the University a lot of money. So in answer to the topic of this threat, the quick and easy answer is NO. There is a long, long way to go before a license denial could take place. And the biggest impediment to Banzhaf's challenge would be the First Amendment.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

Maybe we as a nation have not given the FCC the kind of guidance and legal mechanism that allows them to do what Banhaf wants them to do. Maybe the FCC doesn't have the authority to make this decision on behalf of the entire nation.

Click to expand...

It's my view that they don't. The Constitution is very clear in saying "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." No law means no law. If the FCC creates a rule, it has the weight of federal law. That is unconstitutional. The fact that the courts have already thrown out the FCC's indecency rules is an indication of how they'd react to the FCC becoming the language police.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

"Public Policy" is always EVERYBODY's business.

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of public policy, it's a private business he's after. This isn't about the stations in question, this is about his idiotic, self-aggrandizing war on things that he deems offensive, and he's using the stations in attempt to force a private business to change their practices. Not only is it a misuse of public policy, it's a direct attack against a private business using government means, which is highly unethical, if not outright illegal.

Morons are morons, and if you don't call them what they are, they'll only spread their moronic ideas. You stop it before it starts by making clear that the man's position is nothing more than politically correct, white-guilt-driven nonsense. If the commission is wise (which is questionable), they'll see right through it.

JoshTheRadioDude said:

You stop it before it starts by making clear that the man's position is nothing more than politically correct, white-guilt-driven nonsense. If the commission is wise (which is questionable), they'll see right through it.

Click to expand...

Political correctness isn't illegal. Neither is stupidity. Using the FCC as the language police is unconstitutional. It's been two years since the courts threw out the FCC's obscenity rules, and they haven't come up with any revisions yet. Things move very slow down there, and so I'm not expecting anyone to be responding to this until the papers are actually filed. I'm sure they're hoping their terms will be up, and they'll be collecting their government pensions before this requires any action.

TheBigA said:

Political correctness isn't illegal. Neither is stupidity.

Click to expand...

I never said it was, but that doesn't mean we don't have a responsibility to stop it before it even gets to the government level (which... yeah, I know, good luck with that). But, unjustifiably using government regulatory agencies as a weapon against a private business that you have a beef with is potentially illegal. And that's exactly what's going on here.

TheBigA said:

Using the FCC as the language police is unconstitutional. It's been two years since the courts threw out the FCC's obscenity rules, and they haven't come up with any revisions yet. Things move very slow down there, and so I'm not expecting anyone to be responding to this until the papers are actually filed. I'm sure they're hoping their terms will be up, and they'll be collecting their government pensions before this requires any action.

Click to expand...

If they take any action at all. They could well just take one look at it, laugh, and continue on with more important matters, like trying to look impartial in the net neutrality debate while being run by a guy who helped make it an issue.

JoshTheRadioDude said:

If they take any action at all. They could well just take one look at it, laugh, and continue on with more important matters, like trying to look impartial in the net neutrality debate while being run by a guy who helped make it an issue.

Click to expand...

The way the government works is if someone files the required forms in the required way, they have an obligation to respond in some way. They can't just put it on ignore.

Plus this guy has gone out of his way to telegraph his actions. That's a way to get a little attention.

Yeah, and we all know how that obligated response can be: a minimal investigation into the situation followed by a form letter that says "sorry, we don't really give a damn." And of course he's telegraphed his actions to get attention. That's what he's all about. Hence the "self-aggrandizing" attribute I assigned to him earlier. It's further backed up in his use of "I" and "we" in describing his past attempts at this tactic. And taking credit for the "immediate" reaction of TV stations across the country adding black reporters and anchors? The guy's just stroking his own ego, and most people can see right through it. I highly doubt it'll get him anywhere.

JoshTheRadioDude said:

The guy's just stroking his own ego, and most people can see right through it. I highly doubt it'll get him anywhere.

Click to expand...

It depends. As he's pointed out, it's worked in the past. Although his examples are 40 years old. These days, companies are a bit more prepared for this kind of harassment, since it happens so frequently.

In another interview, done by DC radio station WTOP, Banzhaf says this: “Under current federal broadcasting law, repeatedly using a racist, derogatory term is contrary to the public interest and therefore grounds to challenge a license renewal.”

Really? AFAIK, there is nothing in federal broadcasting law that specifically forbids "racist, derogatory terms." He's making a false connection between his personal opinion as an example of something that is contrary to the public interest. Of course, just about anything COULD be viewed as contrary to the public interest, since the public interest was not actually defined in the Communications Act. But to say "federal law says using racist, derogatory terms is contrary to the public interest" is presumptive to say the least. Because it doesn't.

What he also doesn't say is that the "racist, derogatory term" is also the accepted legal name of a company. Not unlike Fagot's Car Repair. So he really has a long way to go. For someone who teaches law in college, he's really playing with the specifics of the law. And perhaps that's the lesson here. He can say to his law students, "See how they run." So far, no one has really challenged him in these interviews.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

We use Public Policy to guide Private Business on a lot of issues.

Click to expand...

A: We do so to uphold the rights of everyone involved and B: we don't do it to attack one specific business which we happen to dislike. That's what makes this wrong on every level. It is not a matter of public policy. This is purely a politically correct attack on one man's business. Nothing beyond that. Pretending otherwise does nobody any favors.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

The people who led campaigns to bring about these existing public policies that regulate private businesses were despised by many the same way you dislike Professor Banzhaf.

Click to expand...

Wrong, for exactly the reason I pointed out above. Public policies that actually serve a purpose to uphold rights and to protect people have a place and were brought about by people with good intentions. This imbecile just wants A: to get rid of a football team's name and B: promote himself. That's not the same reason why people who brought about legitimate policy changes were despised. They were despised simply because they brought about policies that would cost the business owners money. This issue isn't about money, it's about freedom of speech and a supposedly "offensive" name. Don't confuse the two.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

Banzhaf may be pushing an issue that will never achieve traction.... but that does not make him a moron.

Click to expand...

No, what makes him a moron is that he thinks he has the right, through government, to tell other people that they can't use a certain word. That's clearly unconstitutional and a total misuse of government. That makes him a moron.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

By the way. Have you noticed that Public Policy allows the FCC to tell private business that own radio stations what frequency they can use, and how much power they can transmit.

Click to expand...

The reason for that is that electromagnetic bandwidth is a limited resource that requires regulation. Speech is not. There is a tremendous difference.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

Private Business is NOT exempt from Public Policy in the American system.

Click to expand...

No one ever said it was, but using public policy to specifically target a private business the way this buffoon intends to is completely contradictory to the purpose our government exists to serve. If you want to make it your own company's policy not to say "Washington Redskins" on the air, go right ahead. It's your right to do so. But you do not get to force that decision on anyone else. Period.

TheBigA said:

It depends. As he's pointed out, it's worked in the past. Although his examples are 40 years old. These days, companies are a bit more prepared for this kind of harassment, since it happens so frequently.

Click to expand...

It's worked to some extent, but I doubt very much that he and his group can take the credit for the scope of the effect that he claims. As public attitudes toward race shifted, so did hiring practices, and not just in the media. He may have helped jump-start it in D.C., but it was bound to happen in the time frame it did. That was just the direction the nation was headed in. (I know, I know, you can't absolutely state something would have happened, but let's face it: the 70's were a continuing time of change in the way the country looked at race. It just makes sense.)

As for your following post, all good points well made.

TheBigA said:

Political correctness isn't illegal. Neither is stupidity. Using the FCC as the language police is unconstitutional. It's been two years since the courts threw out the FCC's obscenity rules, and they haven't come up with any revisions yet. Things move very slow down there, and so I'm not expecting anyone to be responding to this until the papers are actually filed. I'm sure they're hoping their terms will be up, and they'll be collecting their government pensions before this requires any action.

Click to expand...

But those who work in the Executive Branch of the Federal government do have a fiduciary responsibility to spend the public's resources carefully and prudently. So, using the people's resources to attempt to enforce political correctness and other such stupidity is counter the bureaucrats' fiduciary responsibilities.

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:

Banzhaf may be pushing an issue that will never achieve traction.... but that does not make him a moron.

Click to expand...

The fact that he's pursuing an agenda that will never achieve traction doesn't make him a moron. The fact that the issue he's pushing concerns the nickname of a professional football team demonstrates that he is a moron.

Avid Listener said:

But those who work in the Executive Branch of the Federal government do have a fiduciary responsibility to spend the public's resources carefully and prudently. So, using the people's resources to attempt to enforce political correctness and other such stupidity is counter the bureaucrats' fiduciary responsibilities.

Click to expand...

The FCC is overseen by Congress. So Congress could step in (as they have in the past) and slap the FCC's hands. Of course Congress has already cut the FCC's budget, so in effect, they've already limited any potential action.