Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

FCC Rejects Argument That “Redskins” Is a Dirty Word

FCC indecency regulations don’t apply to offensive words, just ones that involve “sexual or excretory” activity.

miker / Shutterstock.com

Sorry, people who hate the name of Washington’s NFL team — the Federal Communications Commission isn’t going to fine broadcasters for using the term “Redskins.”

The agency has rejected a September petition by George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf III to deny a Washington-area radio station’s broadcast license renewal because announcers there routinely use the word “Redskins” when talking about the team. The petition argued that the word is akin to an obscenity or hate speech and shouldn’t be used on the air.

“Because the law defines profanity as sexual or excretory in nature, we cannot find the word profane,” the FCC’s media bureau said Thursday in a notice denying the petition.

Banzhaf’s petition represented a novel legal approach to pressure the Washington team’s owner to change the name, but like other previous efforts, it didn’t quite work out.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said previously that he also finds the name “Redskins” offensive and thinks it should be changed. But he said the FCC would follow the law when deciding on whether broadcasters could be fined for using it on air.

Native American groups and supporters have increased pressure this year on Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to change the name, which they say is racist and offensive. Thus far, Snyder has refused.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

More in Technology

Podcasts
Are humanoid robots all hype?Are humanoid robots all hype?
Podcast
Podcasts

AI is making them better — but they’re not going to be doing your chores anytime soon.

By Avishay Artsy and Sean Rameswaram
Future Perfect
The old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemicThe old tech that could help stop the next airborne pandemic
Future Perfect

Glycol vapors, explained.

By Shayna Korol
Future Perfect
Elon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wantsElon Musk could lose his case against OpenAI — and still get what he wants
Future Perfect

It’s not about who wins. It’s about the dirty laundry you air along the way.

By Sara Herschander
Life
Why banning kids from AI isn’t the answerWhy banning kids from AI isn’t the answer
Life

What kids really need in the age of artificial intelligence.

By Anna North
Culture
Anthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque messAnthropic owes authors $1.5B for pirating work — but the claims process is a Kafkaesque mess
Culture

“Your AI monster ate all our work. Now you’re trying to pay us off with this piece of garbage that doesn’t work.”

By Constance Grady
Future Perfect
Some deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapySome deaf children are hearing again because of a new gene therapy
Future Perfect

A medical field that almost died is quietly fixing one disease at a time.

By Bryan Walsh