FCC Mulls Banning Redskins Name

[cajuncocoa]

//

[Spikender]

See South Park for the appropriate response to this dumbassery.

[CaptUSA]

We should ban the FCC.

[Root]

The FCC should ban these as well... It's for the children
Aw $#@! it, just ban something already. It's already past 9:30 am EST.

[Origanalist]

We should ban the FCC.

Problem, solution.

[donnay]

“Political correctness is tyranny with manners.”

~ Charlton Heston

[69360]

You have to be kidding me. There is worse on OTA tv every night.

[fisharmor]

This must be why Pandora has been inundating me with commercials about how all Indians secretly love the Redskins.

[Keith and stuff]

"Washington football club"

The guy thinks it is a soccer team. He is very out of touch with reality.

[Southron]

We do have a national religion and these people are the enforcers of the national morality.

[jmdrake]

SMH

Ideas for new names? It should be something that actually fits the character of the city. Washington tyrants? Washington drug runners? Washington child molesters? Washington thieves? Washington regulators? Washington war criminals? Washington job killers? Washington beasts? Washington conspirators? Washington royals? Washington bootlickers?

[Anti Federalist]

SMH

Ideas for new names? It should be something that actually fits the character of the city. Washington tyrants? Washington drug runners? Washington child molesters? Washington thieves? Washington regulators? Washington war criminals? Washington job killers? Washington beasts? Washington conspirators? Washington royals? Washington bootlickers?

You must spread some rep around...

[acptulsa]

You must spread some rep around...

I tried to cover for you. But, of course, no one can match the heft of your rephammer.

This is actually a brilliant way to use the popularity of their own circuses (though they're supposed to distract us instead) against them. We need to meme this theme until it's viral, if we can.

My best suggestion is Washington Warmongers.

But I also suggest Washington Pork Barrels, Washington Monsanto-ites, Washington Bribetakers, Washington Corporatists, Washington Lobbyhoes, Washington Fascists, Washington Pinkoes, Washington Crack Whores, Washington Stalinists, and maybe even Washington Scalyskins. Another rather poetic one is Washington Foreskins. But that's false advertising--most Washingtonians are total dicks.

Oh, and one more: The Washington Forked Tongues.

[otherone]

SMH

Ideas for new names? It should be something that actually fits the character of the city. Washington tyrants? Washington drug runners? Washington child molesters? Washington thieves? Washington regulators? Washington war criminals? Washington job killers? Washington beasts? Washington conspirators? Washington royals? Washington bootlickers?

FORESKINS

[DFF]

...backdoor to UK style hate speech laws.

[cajuncocoa]

I tried to cover for you. But, of course, no one can match the heft of your rephammer.

This is actually a brilliant way to use the popularity of their own circuses (though they're supposed to distract us instead) against them. We need to meme this theme until it's viral, if we can.

My best suggestion is Washington Warmongers.

But I also suggest Washington Pork Barrels, Washington Monsanto-ites, Washington Bribetakers, Washington Corporatists, Washington Lobbyhoes, Washington Fascists, Washington Pinkoes, Washington Crack Whores, Washington Stalinists, and maybe even Washington Scalyskins. Another rather poetic one is Washington Foreskins. But that's false advertising--most Washingtonians are total dicks.

Oh, and one more: The Washington Forked Tongues.

Dallas Cowboys fans have been calling them this for ages. Not kidding at all.

[LibForestPaul]

I do not see or hear the citizenry calling for creating private property of the airwaves. Apparently, they desire this, and need the FCC to protect them from themselves.

[Jackie Moon]

We should ban the FCC.

Seems like something the broadcasters should also want.

The FCC chief said he personally finds the term offensive and urged the team to change the name. But he didn't say whether he thinks it is illegal.

"There are a lot of names and descriptions that were used for a time that are inappropriate today," he said.

Hmm... NBC just re-aired this episode of SNL from 1975 on Saturday and it uses more offensive language than Redskins. I was actually surprised they were allowed to do it.

[Suzanimal]

FCC dismisses Redskins name petition


The FCC on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by a professor claiming the Washington Redskins name is indecent, according to agency sources.
George Washington University Professor John Banzhaf asked the FCC to deny renewal of the broadcast license for a radio station co-owned by Washington team owner Daniel Snyder, because of the repeated use of the word “Redskins.” Attorneys for Snyder have said banning broadcasters’ use of the word would violate free speech and property rights.

The status of similar petitions filed by three Native Americans against TV stations are still active.
The FCC determined that the law defines profanity as sexual or excretory in nature, so it cannot find the word “Redskins” profane.
“We find that there have been no serious violations of the [Communications] Act or the rules involving the station or any other violations that, taken together, would constitute a pattern of abuse,” wrote Peter H. Doyle, chief of the Media Bureau’s audio division.
Banzhaf said he will not stop his effort to get the name banned from the airwaves.
“I’ve got quite a number of options we’re still looking at,” he said in an interview. “I’ve got to sit down with some of my colleagues and see where we go from here. It’s a disappointment, but it’s certainly not the end of the line.”
The issue of the Redskins name has generated a lot of attention lately. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said in the past that he finds the term “offensive and derogatory.”
In May, 50 Democratic senators sent letters to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell urging him and the league to endorse changing the name. And in August, the team appealed a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision to cancel the team’s six federal trademarks.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/1...#ixzz3MRgd5a2p

[Primbs]

Snyder has been a very high level GOP donor. That is part of the reason to harass Snyder.
Now Snyder will probably donate more just to make sure GOP senators take up his cause. But he is a 100K type of guy.

[Dr.3D]

Why the big deal over a certain kind of peanut?

[JK/SEA]

i have 'red hair', and i find that term offensive...its not really 'red' as 'red' is defined...its on my drivers license as 'red hair'...bastards.

[cajuncocoa]

Why the big deal over a certain kind of peanut?

Thank you for calling this to our attention. We must change their name, too.

[Natural Citizen]

Well. I'll say this. I'm more native American than I am foreigner. In fact, I grew up literally a short walk from the Cherokee National Forest. That said, the use of the term Redskins doesn't really bother me.

Of course, we're not really red, you know.

[milgram]

The FCC only regulates language on the networks, right?

[Suzanimal]

DOJ intervenes in Redskins court fight

At issue is a ruling by the Patent and Trademark Office that stripped the team of several trademarks, calling the name "Redskins" offensive to Native Americans.

The Justice Department’s notice, filed Friday and posted publicly by the National Law Journal, doesn’t take a stance over whether the team’s trademarked name and logo should be canceled. But the DOJ will defend the statute that influenced that ruling, which bars companies from registering certain offensive trademarks.
In June, the Patent Office canceled six of the team’s trademarks that include the term “Redskins” for flouting that law. The ruling found that five Native American plaintiffs proved that the term was disparaging, giving the Patent Office grounds to cancel it.

The Washington Redskins appealed the decision in August to a federal judge, arguing that the law and its application violates the team’s First Amendment right to free speech.

The team’s statement, posted on the National Football League’s website, said that “the team has been unfairly deprived of its valuable and long-held intellectual property rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

The team still holds the trademarks until the end of the appeals process. Law professors told The Hill after the June ruling that even if the ruling stands, the team won’t lose all of its protections, specifically rights to its logo without the term “Redskins.” That would allow the team to challenge any unauthorized merchandizing that used the logo.

A fact sheet released with the June ruling also says that the Patent Office decision wouldn’t force the team to change its name or stop using the trademarks and that other protections could apply even if the trademark is canceled.

Because the team plays just outside the nation's capital, the trademark controversy is a contentious issue for politicians.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in July on ABC’s “This Week” that the name “ought to be changed” and is “offensive.”

President Obama told The Associated Press in 2013 that he’d “think about changing” the name if he owned the team.

Virginia Senate candidate Ed Gillespie (R), though, released an advertisement supporting the team’s name during his failed 2014 bid to replace Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...trademark-case
The Justice Department is stepping into a court fight over whether the Washington Redskins can legally trademark their name.

[Weston White]

Truly, what is so derogative about the word “redskin”? It does not mean a scalped Indian’s head (as some would incorrectly suggested in their desperation to formulate an argument); it simply references an American Indian, the term ‘redskin’, albeit since becoming a bit pejorative (i.e., but only through the political correctness of progressivism—gone too far), derives from the fact that Indians used to paint their faces red during Colonial America. The fact the an American sports team had named their sports team after Indians the same as say the Oilers, 49ers, Cowboys, Bills, Raiders, Bears, Patriots, Broncos, Colts, Stingrays, Eagles, Saints, etc., it done not as an insult but in honor of those named. It is intended to honor the fighting spirit of the object or mascot being personified, idolized, or fetishized.

Redskin is no more derogatory than the use of such militarized terms as leatherneck, jarhead, squid, or seal. To be called such is worn as a badge-of-honor by those deserving to be labeled such.

While, if we are to traverse such an atrophic route why not also red-flag (please excuse the pun) the Kanas City Chiefs—clearly their name taken in context with their logo intends to depict that not even an Indian chief is capable of forging an accurate arrowhead; the Cleveland Browns—isn’t the name itself overtly slanderous towards blacks; or how about the Cleveland Indians MLB team—if not simply for their opted name then for their official logo, Chief Wahoo, which caricaturizes Indians as nothing more than goofy looking “redskins”:

...And there you have it. Absolutely ridiculous.