FCC To Consider Petition To Ban Redskins Name

Old and busted:

  • “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell
  • “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington
  • “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire
  • “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Ben Franklin

New hotness: “I’m offended. You must be silenced” Every Liberal

(Yahoo Sports) The Federal Communications Commission, an independent government agency that regulates radio and television broadcasts, is considering whether to fine and punish broadcasters for using the Washington Redskins nickname, per CNBC.

John Banzhaf III, a George Washington University law professor, has sent the FCC a petition asking regulators to strip Washington D.C. radio station WWXX-FM (ESPN) of its broadcasting license when it comes up for renewal for using the name Redskins, which Banzhaf deems to be “akin to broadcasting obscenity.”

If the word “Redskins” is deemed to be indecent — and some do consider it a slur against Native Americans — the FCC could impose a de facto ban on the word being used on television and radio. Broadcasters who then use the word would be subject to fine and/or possible suspension.

And No One Must Be Offended

(Reuters) Banzhaf says the word is racist, derogatory, profane and hateful, making its use “akin to broadcasting obscenity.”

Which is hilarious, since liberals approve of broadcasting heavy sexual content and violence on TV, but can’t deal with the word “Redskins”.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “FCC To Consider Petition To Ban Redskins Name”

  1. Jeffery says:

    hat the fuck? Redskins. It’s just a fucking word. Speech. We have God damn freedom of speech.

    So all you fucking teabaggers, kikes, wops, dagos, niggers, faggots, warmists, whiny titty babies, taco benders, camel jockeys, cunts, bitches, assholes, gun fondlers, ammosexuals and mother fuckers need to shut the fuck up.

    Even convervatards with their extra Neanderthal genes understand the concept of freedom of speech. The government shall neither prohibit nor promote free expression. There is absolutely no God damn precedent that the fucking federal government has ever regulated what goes out over the federally regulated airwaves! Jesus Fucking Christ, people. These are just words and the government needs to keep their nigger bitch noses out of it.

    By what fucking authority can the assholes at the FCC consider fining federally licensed radio and television stations for using a so-called “bad” word on air? Faggot cocksuckers.

  2. John says:

    Well conservatives want to suppress sex on TV (and pretty much everywhere else) why don’t they also want yo have people stop using this slur ? Teach would you allow your workers to call customers Redskins ? Do you think that would be OK ? Do you personally use that term to describe people? Would you say that your phone store us redskin friendly ?

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Well, Jeffery’s true colors come out.

    He’ll try and say that it is satire, but for anyone who has been around for awhile, it’s just Jeffery “being real.”

    “why don’t they also want yo have people stop using this slur ? “

    What slur?

    Teach would you allow your workers to call customers Redskins ?

    I am sure that if Joe Theisman came into Teach’s place of business, he might say “here’s a Hall of Fame Redskin.” Do you have a problem with that factual assertion?

    Secondly johnny boy, you are aware that there is a difference between regulated speech by the government and regulated speech in the workplace, aren’t you? You must be aware of that difference because it has been around for a long time and yet you seem to be woefully ignorant of the distinction.

    Do you personally use that term to describe people?

    If they play for the NFL team from Washington, isn’t that an accurate description? Are you saying that people should lie and call players from Washington “The Cowboys?”

    Would you say that your phone store us redskin friendly ?

    I wouldn’t because I am not a fan of the Washington Redskins. But you might want to display your bigotry against all people because that is what liberals stand for.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Does the FCC have the authority to fine or otherwise punish radio and television stations for what the send over the public airwaves? Should we even license public radio and television stations? Why can’t people just do whatever they wish, whenever they wish?

    Do you agree with the courts that the FCC was wrong to fine CBS over Janet Jackson’s briefly exposed nipple? Do you think the subsequent FCC ban on exposed nipples is OK?

    Clearly, the community standard for the use of the slur, Redskins, is changing, but the only recourse against the team is the marketplace, including pressuring broadcasters from using a slur.

  5. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    So you want to ban Redskins. What about all the rap music with the word nigger? Why don’t you have a desire to ban that? I realize that blacks are using the term, but then they are being offensive to other blacks. How about bitch? Now that is a very offensive term for women, yet you don’t go around trying to ban it from music. What about all the bad terms in books? You could set up a book burning, your type likes that sort of thing. Were does offense begin and end? I am Irish and might not care for the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. Or for that matter the schools that use Ragin Cajuns. Then there is the Oilers, I used to be one and find it offensive. As I understand it, the Redskins name came from and Indian coach. Was he offended in its use. Then that leads us back to the rap music. One of the main problems with the US is all the offended people. And John, most of the censorship in TV and radio comes as a gift from our liberal friends and progressives who want to use government to enforce morals.

  6. Casey says:

    John is obviously too stupid to understand the difference between speech and sex acts.

    Certain actions such as burning the flag have been defined as “political speech,” but there has been a long-standing legal precedent of regulating pornography, at in terms of “obscene’ content. The tricky part is defining the term.

    While the claim that “conservatives want to suppress sex on TV” is over-broad and wildly inaccurate, there exists (as I pointed out above) a legitimate concern about broadcasting obscene material over the public airwaves. This is why cable shows have more leeway to include near-X-rated scenes, while the broadcast stations don’t even show a nipple.

    In case that’s too complex for John, it’s the difference between your local newspaper, and Hustler magazine. Most normal human beings would be opposed to explicit sexual material in the former, but not the latter.

  7. jl says:

    “Redskins a slur.” Not to everybody by any means, including many Native Americans. So what this comes down to for the party of the perpetually aggrieved, is that the word “skin” next to a color makes them wet their beds. “Whites”- ok. “Blacks”- ok. “Reds”-ok. “Redskin”- not ok. Got it.

  8. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    You conflate broadcasts using the limited electromagnetic spectrum that Congress says belongs to all of us with rappers selling CDs.

    I haven’t suggested we ban the slur, Redskins. We can bleep it out of public broadcasts, like we do cunt, wop, fuck, shit, heeb, faggot etc. The networks can blur the offensive images. For example, the estimable Kendrick Lamar was bleeped constantly when he rapped with Imagine Dragons on the publicly broadcasted Grammy’s.

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Kendrick+Lamar+Imagine+Dragons+Grammys&Form=VQFRVP#view=detail&mid=E76373A402D4024F8BFCE76373A402D4024F8BFC

    The NFL and the Washington NFL team can decide if they can put up the limitations.

  9. TrishMac says:

    “Well conservatives want to suppress sex on TV (and pretty much everywhere else) ” You are about the dumbest brick in the wall. Do you or have you ever had children? Do you or did you want them to turn on a TV and see blatant sex acts any time of the day or night?
    And where do you get that “conservatives” want to suppress sex?
    And, Pretty much anywhere else? You have definitely lost it buddy. You have no reason to think that, and are now just making stuff up!

  10. Jeffery says:

    Teabagger j typed: ” “Redskins a slur.” Not to everybody by any means, including many Native Americans.”

    Of course not everyone agrees on what constitutes a slur. Your compatriots at Stormfront don’t consider “mud people” directed at Blacks a slur, either. And only wingnuts consider Teabagger a slur.

    The rest of what you typed was utterly nonsensical. Your reasoning: Since “Red” is not a slur, and “Skins” is not a slur, it stands to reason that “Redskins” is not a slur. “Cock” is not obscene and “sucker” is not obscene, therefore “cocksucker” is not obscene.

    You guys claim “teabagger” is a slur, yet neither “tea” nor “bagger” are slurs.

  11. gitarcarver says:

    Isn’t it amazing that Jeffery thinks that a team name that is not offensive to the majority of people who may be offended and is intended to honor the best qualities in a team is the same thing as a term that is meant to be derogatory and is found offensive by the majority of people of people that are called the slur.

    The stupid is strong in Jeffery.

Bad Behavior has blocked 12180 access attempts in the last 7 days.