As Expected, "Redskins" Win Round One at FCC

WASHINGTON - Dec. 18, 2014 - PRLog -- WASHINGTON, DC, Dec. 18, 2014 - As expected, Dan Snyder's radio station won round one in a challenge to the license of one of his radio stations for unnecessary and repeatedly using a word which has been found in several different legal proceedings to be a "racial slur" - "R*dskins - but we have many more strings to our bow, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who is behind this and other challenges.

Arguing that using the word "R*dskins" repeatedly and unnecessarily on the air - just like the use of any similar word like "N*ggers" or "Ch*nks," "K*kes, " etc. - is contrary to the public interest standard the station is required by law to meet requires the FCC to reconsider several old and out-of-date decisions it made in the past.

The FCC staff, which issued today's ruling, is bound by those decisions - just as lower courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions, so only the five commissioners are completely free to adopt new policy.  That why an appeal of today's staff decision - first within the agency, and then subsequently to the U.S. Court of Appeals - is likely.

Banzhaf notes that he has helped several Native Americans to file similar petitions concerning TV station KTTV in Los Angeles.  Unlike the WWXX petition which was filed late, and therefore could be dismissed by the staff much more easily, the KTTV petitions were timely filed, and will have to be given more serious consideration.

Moreover, the Los Angeles petitions which are now pending before the FCC contain several additional legal theories which the staff in the WWXX case did not rule on.  To take only one example, those cases argue that repeatedly and unnecessarily subjecting employees to racial slurs, whether they are the R-word or the N-word or some other similar racist slur, created a racially hostile environment.

The law is clear, says Banzhaf, that employers must take steps to avoid and correct any racially hostile work environments, even if the employer is a newspaper which enjoys the highest level of First Amendment protection.  Thus radio and TV stations, which as regulatees enjoy far less First Amendment protection than newspapers, cannot hide behind the Constitution regarding this allegation.

"Virtually everyone seems to assume that no radio or TV station which repeatedly and unnecessarily used racial slurs like "N*ggers," "Ch*nks," "K*kes," etc. on the air would be allowed to continue broadcasting, much less have its valuable broadcasting license renewed," says Banzhaf.  All we seek here is that Native Americans be given the same protection as African Americans, Asians, and other racial and ethnic groups.

Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418