FCC says Redskins name not offensive | Fox News

I didn't need the FCC to tell me that.

I didn't need the FCC to tell me that.

 

Me either, but a lot of lawmakers did, like Harry Reid.

Well the government said it, so it must be true.

If you read the article (which is five sentences long) it says the FCC says the word was not "sexual or excretory" in nature, and thus did not meet their criteria of "indecent" for broadcast. They did not opine on whether the term "Redskins" is offensive or not, like this is some kind of definitive resolution to the issue.

 

The petition claimed repeated use of the word "Redskins" violates rules against indecent content.

 

But the FCC said that the law defines profanity as sexual or excretory in nature — meanings that don't relate to the name of the football team.

Headline appears to be wrong. FCC, looking through a rather narrow prism, simply said "Redskins" isn't obscene, citing the Supreme Court definition. FCC didn't address whether the term is offensive/racist, which it obviously is ... or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Headline appears to be wrong. FCC, looking through a rather narrow prism, simply said "Redskins" isn't obscene, citing the Supreme Court definition. FCC didn't address whether the term is offensive/racist, which IN MY OPINION it obviously is ... or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

 

Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.

Sorry. You're wrong. If a name is offensive to a large number of people (tribal councils, 50 U.S. senators, for instance), then it's a fact -- not an opinion -- that said name is offensive. At issue here is whether this particular name is so offensive that it requires a name change.

For every person or group you can find that thinks the name is offensive, I can find another person or group who thinks it's not...so it is just an opinion. Facts are undisputed.

For every person or group you can find that thinks the name is offensive, I can find another person or group who thinks it's not...so it is just an opinion. Facts are undisputed.

Your logic is illogical. Facts aren't separated from opinion by consensus. Where your argument also fails is that people depicted by the name "Redskins" are at the forefront of this name-change fight. The question isn't whether "Redskins" is offensive ... it is ... the question is whether the Washington NFL franchise is somehow different from Miami and St. John's universities.

All the PC of today has grown tiresome.

Sorry. You're wrong. If a name is offensive to a large number of people (tribal councils, 50 U.S. senators, for instance), then it's a fact -- not an opinion -- that said name is offensive. At issue here is whether this particular name is so offensive that it requires a name change.

50 Senators. :lol2: My guess is 0 of them find it offensive, that's what I find offensive. It was never offensive to them until it became fashionable. They were never offended the 100s of games they attended on the citizen's dime.

Well the government said it, so it must be true.

And put it on the internets, Boom, it's a fact.

Your logic is illogical..

 

Your logic is illogical. Facts aren't separated from opinion by consensus. Where your argument also fails is that people depicted by the name "Redskins" are at the forefront of this name-change fight. The question isn't whether "Redskins" is offensive ... it is ... the question is whether the Washington NFL franchise is somehow different from Miami and St. John's universities.

 

And there also Native American high schools with the nickname Redskins. There are many, many polls showing native Americans support the word Redskins as well as supporting Washington so I would say it is opinion.