FCC Rules on Washington Redskins Name

Dec 19, 2014  •  Post A Comment

The Federal Communications Commission has issued a ruling in the dispute over the name of the Washington Redskins NFL team. Bloomberg reports that the panel said the name isn’t profane or obscene.

The FCC dismissed a request to deny the license renewal of a Virginia radio station that uses the name in its broadcasts covering the team, the story says. George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf III claimed the use of the term for the NFL team is objectionable because the word “Redskins” is a “derogatory racial and ethnic slur” against Native Americans.

The ruling is “no more than round one,” Banzhaf said, adding that there are other active petitions before the FCC about the use of the term.

“Last month the team won the right to review a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the mark as disparaging,” the story reports. “Team owner Daniel Snyder has repeatedly said the name was intended to honor Native Americans and he won’t change it.”


  1. Fuck the FCC. They allow public humiliation of our people. It is no different than Washington N****r*. They just lost all credibility in my book. They have no authority over our lives anymore. They support this hate crime of flying banners with racial slurs. And Fuck the team owner. You lying piece of shit. You say it is to honor us…we say it is offensive. Do not piss on us and tell us it’s raining. 2014. Still dealing with the bullshit racist government. Why not take the reservations back now? You took everything else and still allow our people to be called N*****r*. Anonymous please help us! Wreak your mayhem upon the FCC.

    • Mr. Dubbins:

      Isn’t it ironic that your sophomoric diatribe can be published on a web site but you want to restrict the speech of everyone else?

      You, sir, have either indulged in way too much firewater this early in the day or too much liberal coddling has warped your perspective. Either way, I am unimpressed by your position. Get a life.

  2. Mr. Dubbins,
    You wrote about what is and what is not offensive. Your response is offensive. Not necissasrily your side of the issue, but your expression of viewpoint.
    This is what you call “Ironic”.

  3. You know, I think that he has a point and understand his frustration. Slowly, we are losing all of our collective senses over “sensitivities” that really are not. We cannot even refer to a “Christmas Tree” as a “Christmas Tree” because it is deemed as being “offensive.” Instead, newscasters in Chicago refer to it as the “ABC -7′ ‘Holiday Tree…'” Whatever happened to tolerance? And I totally agree with the first poster’s comment…well, some of it…

  4. It is only a name. But never mind how the “white people” allegedly stold/took all of the Indian’s land. Now THAT would be a completely different story…

  5. TIRED OF ALL OF IT. Too much B.S. and not enough personal accountability….

  6. If we’re going with free speech and honoring skin colors regardless of who it offends then these names should be OK:
    Harlem Black Skins, San Francisco Yellow Skins, New England White Skins

Your Comment

Email (will not be published)