RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Should the Redskins change their name?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4393



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 2:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If the Redskins were to change their name (Braves, Warriors, etc.) to some other Indian related name and drop the logo, would that satisfy people, or would the bitching just start all over again?

Because there does seem to be two sets of opponents to the name. The ones that oppose Redskins and then the one that opposes any Indian related name at all.
rykhala



Joined: 15 Oct 2009
Posts: 272
Location: Saint Louis, MO


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/26/14 6:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well, they are not Indian names at all. They are no different than any of the hundreds of racial slurs. I am sure that we can all agree that it would be awful to have teams called the Spics, Wetbacks, Degos, Kikes, Tar Babies, Lesbos, Chinks, Gooks, Coons, or Spooks. Why is it so hard to understand how inflammatory Redskins team name is?


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7100
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 11:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

"I'll Fucking Cut You" a behind the scenes account if the Daily Show's Washington Redskins segment.

Great article, and really puts things into perspective.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57693
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 12:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.



_________________
Marlene watches from the wall
Her mocking smile says it all
As she records the rise and fall
Of every soldier passing
p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9714



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 12:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

South Park: Go Fund Yourself


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 11168
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 1:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Man, reading some of the comments below the article....sheesh.

I would like to know what REALLY bothers opponents of the name change.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 1:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7100
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 2:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.

That's for its "indecency" standards. This would qualify under the FCC's restrictions on "profane" language. According to the FCC something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Because of the first amendment, profane speech cannot be banned outright, but they are allowed to restrict the times when it can occur. Right now that is between 6am and 10pm. Since the NFL is played during these time slots, it would apply and would not be considered unconstitutional.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 3:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.

That's for its "indecency" standards. This would qualify under the FCC's restrictions on "profane" language. According to the FCC something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Because of the first amendment, profane speech cannot be banned outright, but they are allowed to restrict the times when it can occur. Right now that is between 6am and 10pm. Since the NFL is played during these time slots, it would apply and would not be considered unconstitutional.


I've got to disagree.

First, there is no normal definition of "profane" that includes racial slurs, so that FCC would have to change its definition.

Second, this is not the FCC deciding to do something; it's a petition that a well-known gadfly filed, partly for publicity, so there's no particular reason to think the FCC will do anything.

Third, while the article says the FCC is "considering" the petition, that's pretty much what it has to say until it acts on it (which I expect to happen roughly never).

Fourth, the FCC has had trouble enforcing even the indecency rule, so the likelihood it would stretch this far is pretty low. (Remember the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident? The Supreme Court decided that the FCC couldn't enforce the indecency rule to fine CBS for it.) The FCC is not likely to stretch in a way that could lead the Supreme Court to decide that the whole rule is unconstitutional.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7100
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 4:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.

That's for its "indecency" standards. This would qualify under the FCC's restrictions on "profane" language. According to the FCC something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Because of the first amendment, profane speech cannot be banned outright, but they are allowed to restrict the times when it can occur. Right now that is between 6am and 10pm. Since the NFL is played during these time slots, it would apply and would not be considered unconstitutional.


I've got to disagree.

First, there is no normal definition of "profane" that includes racial slurs, so that FCC would have to change its definition.

Second, this is not the FCC deciding to do something; it's a petition that a well-known gadfly filed, partly for publicity, so there's no particular reason to think the FCC will do anything.

Third, while the article says the FCC is "considering" the petition, that's pretty much what it has to say until it acts on it (which I expect to happen roughly never).

Fourth, the FCC has had trouble enforcing even the indecency rule, so the likelihood it would stretch this far is pretty low. (Remember the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident? The Supreme Court decided that the FCC couldn't enforce the indecency rule to fine CBS for it.) The FCC is not likely to stretch in a way that could lead the Supreme Court to decide that the whole rule is unconstitutional.

I am not saying the FCC will actually do something, but that they could. What I quoted above is the definition for profane that they use.

According to the FCC's definition, something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

It is why you can't drop racial slurs, as the community would find them offensive. If they were to determine that "Redskins" was, in fact, a racial slur, it would be consistent with their handling of other matters.

And unless the Supreme Court chose to overturn precedent, it would not fail a first amendment challenge. SCOTUS has held that it is perfectly acceptable to limit when speech may be used, if there is another reasonable goal. In this case, the idea is that there is content that is unacceptable for children to hear/see (profanity and indecent content) and that by banning these things during those time-slots they are able to accomplish that goal while not banning them outright.

The Janet Jackson case was declined to be heard by the Supreme Court, which left a lower court's decision in place. The lower court overturned the fine because it was not consistent with how the FCC had adjudicated these sorts of offenses before. The FCC typically turned a blind eye towards fleeting indecency that just had not been caught by the network censors. However, Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement saying that the statements of the FCC in this case would serve as a forewarning to the networks should it happen again (thus suggesting that the same defense of inconsistency and lack of awareness could not be used again). He said that it provided fair warning that "the brevity of an indecent broadcast -- be it word or image -- cannot immunize it from FCC censure."

Current FCC chair Tom Wheeler has called the name "offensive and derogatory" earlier this month, and former chair Reed Hundt has noted that he thinks the name could violate the FCC's decency standards.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 7:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.

That's for its "indecency" standards. This would qualify under the FCC's restrictions on "profane" language. According to the FCC something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Because of the first amendment, profane speech cannot be banned outright, but they are allowed to restrict the times when it can occur. Right now that is between 6am and 10pm. Since the NFL is played during these time slots, it would apply and would not be considered unconstitutional.


I've got to disagree.

First, there is no normal definition of "profane" that includes racial slurs, so that FCC would have to change its definition.

Second, this is not the FCC deciding to do something; it's a petition that a well-known gadfly filed, partly for publicity, so there's no particular reason to think the FCC will do anything.

Third, while the article says the FCC is "considering" the petition, that's pretty much what it has to say until it acts on it (which I expect to happen roughly never).

Fourth, the FCC has had trouble enforcing even the indecency rule, so the likelihood it would stretch this far is pretty low. (Remember the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident? The Supreme Court decided that the FCC couldn't enforce the indecency rule to fine CBS for it.) The FCC is not likely to stretch in a way that could lead the Supreme Court to decide that the whole rule is unconstitutional.

I am not saying the FCC will actually do something, but that they could. What I quoted above is the definition for profane that they use.

According to the FCC's definition, something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

It is why you can't drop racial slurs, as the community would find them offensive. If they were to determine that "Redskins" was, in fact, a racial slur, it would be consistent with their handling of other matters.

And unless the Supreme Court chose to overturn precedent, it would not fail a first amendment challenge. SCOTUS has held that it is perfectly acceptable to limit when speech may be used, if there is another reasonable goal. In this case, the idea is that there is content that is unacceptable for children to hear/see (profanity and indecent content) and that by banning these things during those time-slots they are able to accomplish that goal while not banning them outright.

The Janet Jackson case was declined to be heard by the Supreme Court, which left a lower court's decision in place. The lower court overturned the fine because it was not consistent with how the FCC had adjudicated these sorts of offenses before. The FCC typically turned a blind eye towards fleeting indecency that just had not been caught by the network censors. However, Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement saying that the statements of the FCC in this case would serve as a forewarning to the networks should it happen again (thus suggesting that the same defense of inconsistency and lack of awareness could not be used again). He said that it provided fair warning that "the brevity of an indecent broadcast -- be it word or image -- cannot immunize it from FCC censure."

Current FCC chair Tom Wheeler has called the name "offensive and derogatory" earlier this month, and former chair Reed Hundt has noted that he thinks the name could violate the FCC's decency standards.


The views of the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, on these kinds of First Amendment issues have changed significantly since the original Pacifica decision. The likelihood that the Supreme Court would accept an extension of the already-shaky rules governing indecency and profanity to cover the name of a professional football team is essentially zero, and it's hard to imagine that the FCC would be so crazy as pick that fight. (The Supreme Court certainly did hear the Janet Jackson case, by the way - it issued a decision on June 21, 2012. Justice Roberts did not write any opinion in that case - it was by Justice Kennedy.)

Also, I'm pretty sure there are exactly zero cases in at least the last 25 years where the FCC has fined - or even admonished - a station for broadcasting any non-sexual, non-excretory offensive term, either as an isolated utterance or repeatedly. Go back even further, to the 1970s, and the FCC never once cited "All in the Family," which was filled with ethnic slurs and hateful language. (Really, you couldn't put it on the air today - there are a few examples here, but there were hundreds more.) I'm also confident there are no Supreme Court cases on the FCC's ability to adopt rules on non-sexual, non-excretory terms, so there's no precedent to overturn.

(And I'm not pulling this out of thin air - a big chunk of what I do involves the FCC.)


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7100
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 9:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.

That's for its "indecency" standards. This would qualify under the FCC's restrictions on "profane" language. According to the FCC something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Because of the first amendment, profane speech cannot be banned outright, but they are allowed to restrict the times when it can occur. Right now that is between 6am and 10pm. Since the NFL is played during these time slots, it would apply and would not be considered unconstitutional.


I've got to disagree.

First, there is no normal definition of "profane" that includes racial slurs, so that FCC would have to change its definition.

Second, this is not the FCC deciding to do something; it's a petition that a well-known gadfly filed, partly for publicity, so there's no particular reason to think the FCC will do anything.

Third, while the article says the FCC is "considering" the petition, that's pretty much what it has to say until it acts on it (which I expect to happen roughly never).

Fourth, the FCC has had trouble enforcing even the indecency rule, so the likelihood it would stretch this far is pretty low. (Remember the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident? The Supreme Court decided that the FCC couldn't enforce the indecency rule to fine CBS for it.) The FCC is not likely to stretch in a way that could lead the Supreme Court to decide that the whole rule is unconstitutional.

I am not saying the FCC will actually do something, but that they could. What I quoted above is the definition for profane that they use.

According to the FCC's definition, something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

It is why you can't drop racial slurs, as the community would find them offensive. If they were to determine that "Redskins" was, in fact, a racial slur, it would be consistent with their handling of other matters.

And unless the Supreme Court chose to overturn precedent, it would not fail a first amendment challenge. SCOTUS has held that it is perfectly acceptable to limit when speech may be used, if there is another reasonable goal. In this case, the idea is that there is content that is unacceptable for children to hear/see (profanity and indecent content) and that by banning these things during those time-slots they are able to accomplish that goal while not banning them outright.

The Janet Jackson case was declined to be heard by the Supreme Court, which left a lower court's decision in place. The lower court overturned the fine because it was not consistent with how the FCC had adjudicated these sorts of offenses before. The FCC typically turned a blind eye towards fleeting indecency that just had not been caught by the network censors. However, Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement saying that the statements of the FCC in this case would serve as a forewarning to the networks should it happen again (thus suggesting that the same defense of inconsistency and lack of awareness could not be used again). He said that it provided fair warning that "the brevity of an indecent broadcast -- be it word or image -- cannot immunize it from FCC censure."

Current FCC chair Tom Wheeler has called the name "offensive and derogatory" earlier this month, and former chair Reed Hundt has noted that he thinks the name could violate the FCC's decency standards.


The views of the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, on these kinds of First Amendment issues have changed significantly since the original Pacifica decision. The likelihood that the Supreme Court would accept an extension of the already-shaky rules governing indecency and profanity to cover the name of a professional football team is essentially zero, and it's hard to imagine that the FCC would be so crazy as pick that fight. (The Supreme Court certainly did hear the Janet Jackson case, by the way - it issued a decision on June 21, 2012. Justice Roberts did not write any opinion in that case - it was by Justice Kennedy.)

Also, I'm pretty sure there are exactly zero cases in at least the last 25 years where the FCC has fined - or even admonished - a station for broadcasting any non-sexual, non-excretory offensive term, either as an isolated utterance or repeatedly. Go back even further, to the 1970s, and the FCC never once cited "All in the Family," which was filled with ethnic slurs and hateful language. (Really, you couldn't put it on the air today - there are a few examples here, but there were hundreds more.) I'm also confident there are no Supreme Court cases on the FCC's ability to adopt rules on non-sexual, non-excretory terms, so there's no precedent to overturn.

(And I'm not pulling this out of thin air - a big chunk of what I do involves the FCC.)

As the FCC stated on their site, context matters. In the case of All in the Family the language was designed to highlight a point, as is the case with most ethnic slurs when used in the mainstream. That is very different from using an ethnic slur in the horrible way that Washington's football team does. There is no context, it's just a throwaway.

It would be like just dropping the N-word on television without any deeper meaning. Using it just to use it. And I'd be willing to bet if a network did that, a fine would be incoming. There might not be case history, but that is because no network is that stupid.

The precedent we are talking about here is FCC v. Pacifica. It has long been the position of the court that speech can be limited as long as it passes scrutiny, and Pacifica applied that scrutiny to things that were "indecent but not obscene". The court found the government has a compelling interest in both shielding children from potentially offensive material, and ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home.

Pacifica is why the FCC can even function at all. The outcome of the ruling was that the FCC could ban outright anything considered "obscene" (as obscenity has no first amendment protection) while anything that was determined to be "indecent" or "profane" could be limited between 6am and 10pm. It also gave the FCC very broad leeway in determining what was indecent. Now, whether that would continue to be upheld should it be challenged is definitely debatable, but that is where the current rulings have it placed.

As for the Janet Jackson case, here is the article:

Quote:
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to consider an appeal by the Federal Communications Commission of an appeals court ruling that overturned the agencys fine against CBS for its broadcasting a fleeting image of Janet Jacksons breast during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. warned that because of changes in the agencys rules since then, any similar offense could be punished.

It is now clear that the brevity of an indecent broadcast be it word or image cannot immunize it from F.C.C. censure, he wrote in a two-page opinion that put to rest the CBS case, clearing the network of a $550,000 fine.

Recalling the performance by Ms. Jackson and Justin Timberlake, he noted, The performers subsequently strained the credulity of the public by terming the episode a wardrobe malfunction.


There was another case, not involving Jackson, that was decided upon in an 8-0 decision in which Kennedy wrote the opinion. This was FCC vs. Fox Television Stations. But all the court determined was that Fox shouldn't have to pay a fine for "fleeting" expletives because the FCC was too vague in where they drew the line at for "decency" (thus violated due process clause). However, that case also reaffirmed the earlier Pacifica decision. This is why Roberts noted that CBS (and all networks) were officially on notice about what the FCC considered indecent, and that if it happened again, they would not have a due process claim to stand on.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 9:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure there are exactly zero cases in at least the last 25 years where the FCC has fined - or even admonished - a station for broadcasting any non-sexual, non-excretory offensive term, either as an isolated utterance or repeatedly. Go back even further, to the 1970s, and the FCC never once cited "All in the Family," which was filled with ethnic slurs and hateful language. (Really, you couldn't put it on the air today - there are a few examples here, but there were hundreds more.) I'm also confident there are no Supreme Court cases on the FCC's ability to adopt rules on non-sexual, non-excretory terms, so there's no precedent to overturn.

(And I'm not pulling this out of thin air - a big chunk of what I do involves the FCC.)

As the FCC stated on their site, context matters. In the case of All in the Family the language was designed to highlight a point, as is the case with most ethnic slurs when used in the mainstream. That is very different from using an ethnic slur in the horrible way that Washington's football team does. There is no context, it's just a throwaway.

It would be like just dropping the N-word on television without any deeper meaning. Using it just to use it. And I'd be willing to bet if a network did that, a fine would be incoming. There might not be case history, but that is because no network is that stupid.

The precedent we are talking about here is FCC v. Pacifica. It has long been the position of the court that speech can be limited as long as it passes scrutiny, and Pacifica applied that scrutiny to things that were "indecent but not obscene". The court found the government has a compelling interest in both shielding children from potentially offensive material, and ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home.

Pacifica is why the FCC can even function at all. The outcome of the ruling was that the FCC could ban outright anything considered "obscene" (as obscenity has no first amendment protection) while anything that was determined to be "indecent" or "profane" could be limited between 6am and 10pm. It also gave the FCC very broad leeway in determining what was indecent. Now, whether that would continue to be upheld should it be challenged is definitely debatable, but that is where the current rulings have it placed.

* * *


I repeat: There is not one case in which the FCC has ever fined anyone for using an ethnic slur. They've been used in all sorts of programming, in all sorts of contexts, but no fines, ever. (Howard Stern, for instance, never was cited when he was on broadcast radio for the times the n-word was used on his broadcasts, although he was a target for indecency on multiple occasions.) It also would be an incredible deviation from FCC policy to single out one word from all the others.

In this particular case, context pretty obviously would work against a claimed violation, too - the team name wouldn't be used as a slur, but as the name.

Now, sure, the FCC could give it a try, but there's no evidence that it ever would and certainly no reason to believe that the courts would let it stand.

I'm no fan of the name, to be clear - I think it should be changed, and should have been changed a while back. And, personally, I thought the trademark challenge was very clever and appropriate. There's a big, big difference, though, between denying trademark protection and telling broadcasters that they can't use the name of an NFL team on the air.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7100
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 10:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure there are exactly zero cases in at least the last 25 years where the FCC has fined - or even admonished - a station for broadcasting any non-sexual, non-excretory offensive term, either as an isolated utterance or repeatedly. Go back even further, to the 1970s, and the FCC never once cited "All in the Family," which was filled with ethnic slurs and hateful language. (Really, you couldn't put it on the air today - there are a few examples here, but there were hundreds more.) I'm also confident there are no Supreme Court cases on the FCC's ability to adopt rules on non-sexual, non-excretory terms, so there's no precedent to overturn.

(And I'm not pulling this out of thin air - a big chunk of what I do involves the FCC.)

As the FCC stated on their site, context matters. In the case of All in the Family the language was designed to highlight a point, as is the case with most ethnic slurs when used in the mainstream. That is very different from using an ethnic slur in the horrible way that Washington's football team does. There is no context, it's just a throwaway.

It would be like just dropping the N-word on television without any deeper meaning. Using it just to use it. And I'd be willing to bet if a network did that, a fine would be incoming. There might not be case history, but that is because no network is that stupid.

The precedent we are talking about here is FCC v. Pacifica. It has long been the position of the court that speech can be limited as long as it passes scrutiny, and Pacifica applied that scrutiny to things that were "indecent but not obscene". The court found the government has a compelling interest in both shielding children from potentially offensive material, and ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home.

Pacifica is why the FCC can even function at all. The outcome of the ruling was that the FCC could ban outright anything considered "obscene" (as obscenity has no first amendment protection) while anything that was determined to be "indecent" or "profane" could be limited between 6am and 10pm. It also gave the FCC very broad leeway in determining what was indecent. Now, whether that would continue to be upheld should it be challenged is definitely debatable, but that is where the current rulings have it placed.

* * *


I repeat: There is not one case in which the FCC has ever fined anyone for using an ethnic slur. They've been used in all sorts of programming, in all sorts of contexts, but no fines, ever. (Howard Stern, for instance, never was cited when he was on broadcast radio for the times the n-word was used on his broadcasts, although he was a target for indecency on multiple occasions.) It also would be an incredible deviation from FCC policy to single out one word from all the others.

In this particular case, context pretty obviously would work against a claimed violation, too - the team name wouldn't be used as a slur, but as the name.

Now, sure, the FCC could give it a try, but there's no evidence that it ever would and certainly no reason to believe that the courts would let it stand.

I'm no fan of the name, to be clear - I think it should be changed, and should have been changed a while back. And, personally, I thought the trademark challenge was very clever and appropriate. There's a big, big difference, though, between denying trademark protection and telling broadcasters that they can't use the name of an NFL team on the air.

I agree that this would be a bit of a departure for the FCC to do this. And I agree with you in that I think it is a long shot. My only position here was that they could under the current laws/SC decisions. All they need do, according to the SC and their 2012 decision is make sure the networks are clear that they consider the word indecent.

Is it the correct choice? I don't think so. I am actually for less regulation from the FCC. But it seems well within their current authority to do so if they chose. And I am not convinced that SCOTUS would find it unconstitutional since thy had the ability to limit or overturn Pacifica as recently as 2012, and they chose not to.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 10:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
[
I agree that this would be a bit of a departure for the FCC to do this. And I agree with you in that I think it is a long shot. My only position here was that they could under the current laws/SC decisions. All they need do, according to the SC and their 2012 decision is make sure the networks are clear that they consider the word indecent.

Is it the correct choice? I don't think so. I am actually for less regulation from the FCC. But it seems well within their current authority to do so if they chose. And I am not convinced that SCOTUS would find it unconstitutional since thy had the ability to limit or overturn Pacifica as recently as 2012, and they chose not to.


I understand what you're saying, but I don't think there's even one precedent that would support it. And, honestly, the Supreme Court has long had a thing about sex and sex talk that it does not apply to any other area of speech. Pulling ethnic slurs into that same category seems beyond unlikely to me, particularly with this court. (Yes, I know there's the fighting words case, but it's really old and nobody thinks the court would rule the same way today.)


KatValeska



Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 1830
Location: Colorado


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/14 10:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's unbelievable to me that this is even a matter of discussion in 2014. The word the shoddy football team in Washington uses as it's sick franchise name originally meant proof of Indian kill. In the Denver area particularly, all too often this included the private parts of women. Anyone defending the use of this slur is in serious need of either an education or a conscience. I've stopped following the NFL and will not tune back in until the league joins the 21st century.

Oh, and that survey sited in the original post in this thread was taken in Pennsylvania from "self-identified" Native Americans - meaning it is as meaningless as any poll possibly could be.


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/14 12:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Dan Snyder and his team need to just give this one up. The outcome is inevitable, so why prolong the obvious.

Get out in front of it and try to turn the name change into a positive.


Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4393



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/14 7:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

When the FCC starts threatening to fine people who use the N word, then they can have a leg to stand on to threaten to fine for Redskins.

I don't understand how they can so easily get around that pesky freedom of speech argument.
Mysticsfan12



Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 490



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/14 11:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Redskins is a derogatory term for Natives. It's basically the Native American version for the N word. In fact, maybe I shouldn't even write that. Yeah, I'll cll them "Washington Football team" from now on.



_________________
❄️❄️❄️ ❄️❄️❄️
❄️ ❄️ ❄️ ❄️
❄️ ❄️ ❄️
❄️❄️❄️ ❄️ ❄️
❄️ ❄️❄️
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 6:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Youth Coach wrote:
When the FCC starts threatening to fine people who use the N word, then they can have a leg to stand on to threaten to fine for Redskins.

I don't understand how they can so easily get around that pesky freedom of speech argument.


The FCC rules for "cablecasting" is different than for over the air (OTA) broadcasting. It only holds cable carriers liable for content for which it has editorial control - which is practically nothing on cable.

Of what it does regulate, there is a LOT of subjectivity to it:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-profanity-faq

...and context is a consideration.

But personally, I find the R word offensive.




Last edited by TonyL222 on 10/03/14 10:11 am; edited 1 time in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57693
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 7:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The FCC shouldn't be in the business of regulating content at all.



_________________
Marlene watches from the wall
Her mocking smile says it all
As she records the rise and fall
Of every soldier passing
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 10:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
The FCC shouldn't be in the business of regulating content at all.


Your all over the government agency map today. The TSA isn't doing enough and the FCC is doing too much.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 57693
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 10:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The FCC shouldn't be in the business of regulating content at all.


Your all over the government agency map today. The TSA isn't doing enough and the FCC is doing too much.


Nobody's been killed by naughty words on a television



_________________
Marlene watches from the wall
Her mocking smile says it all
As she records the rise and fall
Of every soldier passing
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 10:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The FCC shouldn't be in the business of regulating content at all.


Your all over the government agency map today. The TSA isn't doing enough and the FCC is doing too much.


Nobody's been killed by naughty words on a television


....and how does that relate to your positions on the TSA (which you previously have said was not needed) and the FCC? I'm confused.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11040
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 10:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The FCC shouldn't be in the business of regulating content at all.


Your all over the government agency map today. The TSA isn't doing enough and the FCC is doing too much.


Nobody's been killed by naughty words on a television


I am a long-time critic of the indecency rule. It's more or less turned into a rule about taste, particularly when it comes to words. "Saving Private Ryan" and NPR's broadcast of a surveillance tape that contained every possible variation of the F word are okay, and Howard Stern is not, at least according to FCC decisions, and that makes no sense to me except as a judgment about what's "worthy" and what's not.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin