FCC: "Redskins" Not "Profane"

by JASmius



And why would it be?  Just because it offends the Left?  The same Left that has no problem at all forcing all manner of obscenities on the Christian Right in the name of "tolerance" and "free speech? 

Just one more one-way street, my friends.  And the FCC, remarkably, chose not to let leftwingnuts redefine the term "profane":

In a formal ruling, the commission rejected calls to yank the broadcast license of a radio station owned by Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder for excessively using the team’s name, which some find offensive.

George Washington University professor John Banzhaf filed a petition in September opposing the license renewal of the D.C. station, WWXX-FM.

The FCC can prohibit the use of profane or obscene language, but the team’s name does not fit the definition of either category, according to the FCC’s Media Bureau, which handled the case.

As, indeed, it does not.  The attempt itself to define the term "Redskins" as "profane" would seem, to me, to be a racist slur against Original Americans, whose very existence is anything but "profane".

Now I could understand "Professor" Benzhaf's objection if Daniel Snyder renamed his NFL franchise the "Foreskins," because that could be construed as "describing or depicting sexual conduct".  And I fully realize that every time D.C.'s 3-11 football team takes the field, the product they put forth is itself an obscenity, and perhaps crappy football is an insult to American Indians.  But none of that has anything to do with the team's nickname, which, by the official FCC definition, clearly is not "profane," and thus not subject to a ban.

It reveals, in point of fact, how desperate lefties are to, um, shaft the "skins that "Professor" Banzhaf attempted this dubious legal gambit.  But I have a suggestion for him and the rest of his ideological fellow-travelers: Get over yourselves, dial down your hyperoversensitivities, and understand that you are not entitled to not be "offended".

At least not in a country where the First Amendment is a two-way street.