FCC Considers Fines For On-Air Use Of Washington Redskins Name

The FCC – best known for its efforts to protect Americans from Janet Jackson’s nipples, Charlotte Ross’ rear end and various gags delivered by a pre-America’s Got Talent Howard Stern – has jumped into the Washington NFL team name debate, announcing today it’s mulling whether to fine broadcasters for saying on-air the racial slur that is the team’s name.

http://deadline.com/2014/09/redskins-fcc-fines-broadcasters-considers-843913/

Why in the world would the FCC do that? Let the broadcasters say what they want. LEAVE THE MEDIA ALONE! My goodness! This is getting rediculous enough about this leave the Redskins name alone. If it offends you go to another country where you feel comfortable.

As much as I don't like the name, I also don't think it's the role of the FCC or any part of the federal government to become the language police.

you sure you didnt see that on "the Onion"??? Under free speech, that will never happen.....I can see any station fined to claim First Amendment rights and win in court.

Hell, NBC last Friday reran a 70s episode of SNL....with Richard Pryor as host..in it, he acts as someone interviewing for a job and Chevy Chase is the HR person....who decides to play a word game...and gets into racial words and yes, Chevy says the N word (Pryor probably wrote that sketch since he was also head writer of "Blazzing Saddles" and did not hold anything back)...they did NOT bleep it and this was in PRIME time..so I doubt the FCC will do anything about the use of the word Redskins...as long as the team is called that, broadcasters will continue to use it...and the FCC has already passed on F bombs on the air when used in a certain context....this falls into that same category

No chance in hell they can legally pull it off. Even the patent office's maneuver was illegal, and Synder's going to spank them soundly in the appeal process on that one. What makes anyone think that, given all of the court rulings that have gone against the FCC in terms of expletives, that they have any authority to do this? It ain't gonna happen.

Besides, the name is not offensive. See, watch: Redskins, Redskins, Redskins, Redskins, Redskins. Now lemme check outside...

...nope, the sky's still right where it was a minute ago. Time to get over this and move on.

Agreed that the FCC has no place in this argument whatsoever, but you could've just stopped right there and looked like an absolute scholar, Josh.

Instead, you began paragraph two, and nose dived.

It's not offensive...TO YOU. It is offensive to a percentage of the Indian community on whom the name is based. Do you see a team called the San Diego Spics being fielded week to week? Or the Carolina Chinks? No you don't, because those names are unacceptable, as should be the term "Redskin". I absolutely find it pathetic and appalling that we'll allow our own people, native to this land, to be disrespected and their heritage trampled for the sake of a longstanding team mascot being a pain to change, but we just can't offend the peaceful, loving Islamic bastards that want to destroy the very fabric of this country, and murder the infidels that won't claim Mohammed as anything more than the terrorist he was.

Yep, sky's still there, and no drones in sight. It's easy to move on Josh, when it doesn't personally affect you. For those who are bothered by the name, it's not necessarily as easy as you attempted to convey.

Legalized Happiness

I normally don't even bother posting on internet boards, but this whole thought-police name debacle just makes me want to throw up. I live near a reservation down south and have several native friends... and ya know what - not a one of them give a damn about this nonsense. Since when have we allowed the minority to rule the majority? If we're not talking 100% angry natives - but instead 15% angry natives... so what. They, along with all the other overly-sensitive nutjobs don't have to attend the games, buy the swag, or endorse what happens in the stadium. Easy. Just let one's dollar vote show displeasure of a company's actions. NO ONE has a right to be unoffended. That's ridiculous. This country has gotten all up in this foolish concept that it is some kind of right to be happy, unoffended, and have great self esteem. I call bullcrap. These folks need to grow up and move on. Sheesh. Pansies.

purpledevil said:

Agreed that the FCC has no place in this argument whatsoever, but you could've just stopped right there and looked like an absolute scholar, Josh.

Instead, you began paragraph two, and nose dived.

Click to expand...

Only in your mind. If you look at the facts, I'm correct. I don't speak out on things unless I'm wholly satisfied that I have all of the relevant facts necessary to do so. If you don't agree, that's because you don't have all the facts. I stated that there is a very small, very vocal minority making a big deal about this, and their taking offense over something that is not offensive does not make that thing offensive. In fact, there are more Native American people who DON'T find "Redskins" offensive than do. It is not a racial slur unless you put the meaning of a slur behind it, and since the term is largely used simply as a descriptor and not a slur, it cannot be compared to the other names you mention. That's how the English language works.

All that being the case, whose actions are more offensive in this situation: the people respectfully using the name "Redskins" in a perfectly innocuous manner, or the social totalitarians playing thought police and insisting that THEY know better than everyone else? (Here's a hint: it's not the people using the name "Redskins.")

Unregistered said:

I normally don't even bother posting on internet boards, but this whole thought-police name debacle just makes me want to throw up. I live near a reservation down south and have several native friends... and ya know what - not a one of them give a damn about this nonsense. Since when have we allowed the minority to rule the majority? If we're not talking 100% angry natives - but instead 15% angry natives... so what. They, along with all the other overly-sensitive nutjobs don't have to attend the games, buy the swag, or endorse what happens in the stadium. Easy. Just let one's dollar vote show displeasure of a company's actions. NO ONE has a right to be unoffended. That's ridiculous. This country has gotten all up in this foolish concept that it is some kind of right to be happy, unoffended, and have great self esteem. I call bullcrap. These folks need to grow up and move on. Sheesh. Pansies.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear!

Here's the real problem with all this: No words are offensive. Offense, like beauty, is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. Being offended is a choice viewers, listeners and readers make. And mostly it's a self-righteous form of bullying those who disagree with them. People are not ever offended. People decide to take offense. But now they have decided that offense lies, inherently, in words they don't like. Now the government is involved and they are doing an effective end-run around the first amendment and the underlying principle of free expression and the marketplace of ideas.

But if we are going to play this game, the FCC should ban all mention of and advertising by Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby. I find them offensive.

Bingo. Fred hits the nail on the head once again.

FredLeonard said:

Here's the real problem with all this: No words are offensive. Offense, like beauty, is in the eyes and ears of the beholder.

Click to expand...

I agree. But the issue here isn't what's offensive, but if the federal government should be involved, and if a federal agency can punish a broadcast licensee because people are offended by the official name of a co-owned entity.

Why isn't the government going after the NFL? If the NFL's team has an offensive name, the proper course of action is to go after the NFL. Not a radio station.

TheBigA said:

I agree. But the issue here isn't what's offensive, but if the federal government should be involved, and if a federal agency can punish a broadcast licensee because people are offended by the official name of a co-owned entity.

Why isn't the government going after the NFL? If the NFL's team has an offensive name, the proper course of action is to go after the NFL. Not a radio station.

Click to expand...

They already did, through the Patent and Trademark Office. And that was illegal, too.

JoshTheRadioDude said:

They already did, through the Patent and Trademark Office. And that was illegal, too.

Click to expand...

They have far bigger ways to force the NFL to change things. Had the Justice Department been involved, THEN you'd see action.

Problem is, there's nothing for the Justice Department to do in this situation. Snyder's not doing anything illegal. The government is going after him in ways that they know they can get away with, like illegally cancelling his trademarks or forcing him to sell off his stations.

JoshTheRadioDude said:

Problem is, there's nothing for the Justice Department to do in this situation. Snyder's not doing anything illegal. The government is going after him in ways that they know they can get away with, like illegally cancelling his trademarks or forcing him to sell off his stations.

Click to expand...

There's the NFL monopoly. As long as they play nice, the Justice Department overlooks it. But if they want to be mean, they could bring that up.

Eh, true. I just figure they know better. The public backlash for taking down the entire league would be enormous. The sport is at the height of its popularity right now, there would be FAR too many people -- and ancillary industries -- pissed off if they were to seriously try it.

If they really want to get Snyder to change the name, that's how to do it.