Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

[Shindig]

I cut the rest of your comments off because this part alone is a real problem to me.    Freedom of speech is one of our most treasured ideals in this country, however lately it seems that only applies so long as no one is offended by that speech.   There is nothing in the first amendment that addresses someone being offended by the speech of another.    With regard to this particular issue, when the fans stop buying Redskins merchandise and stop showing up at games, Snyder will change the name.    Otherwise, it will take some sort of legal action to cause it and that would be a travesty.    IMHO, if people don't like the name, they need to address it with their pocketbooks rather than trample the first amendment.

Please explain to me how it's a violation of the first amendment for anyone [i]other than the government[/i] to force the Redskins to change their name.

[cristphoto]

Seems society is all about political correctness these days.  Terms, jokes. ideas, team nick names in professional sports are suddenly being scrutinized to ensure we're being sensitive to the feelings of every special interest group that exists or might exist some day in this country.   I understand now some high brow media types like Bob Costas are refusing to use the word Redskin in their coverage of the team.  He'll still collect money for covering the Redskins, he just won't say the word, what a hypocrite :doh: So should the owners of the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks (only to name a few) be forced to change their team name or do people just need to get over themselves? Before you ask, as an Italian American I'd be perfectly fine if a team had a nickname like NY Wops, Ginney's or Dago's for over 50 years and their owners didn't want to change it.   I also wasn't offended that the Soprano's portrayed Italians as having association with organized crime.

Are the Blackhawks an Indian tribe? It doesn't sound offensive to me but my roots (going back a few generations) are French and German.

[jamo]

I cut the rest of your comments off because this part alone is a real problem to me.    Freedom of speech is one of our most treasured ideals in this country, however lately it seems that only applies so long as no one is offended by that speech.   There is nothing in the first amendment that addresses someone being offended by the speech of another.

Let me post the First Amendment here for you: [QUOTE] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/QUOTE] Are you under the impression that I am a member of Congress, or any governmental agency? That my posts here carry the power of law? All I'm doing is using the rights afforded to my by the previously posted First Amendment as a small part of an effort to impact the Redskins' public reception and, ultimately, their bottom line.

[teamroper60]

Please explain to me how it's a violation of the first amendment for anyone other than the government to force the Redskins to change their name.

As I said, unless fans vote with their pocketbook to force a change, it will take legal action to cause Snyder to make a name change.  Once it enters the legal system (aka our court system), the government is involved, even if it were to be a civil action.

Furthermore, once free speech becomes something that can be censored through the court system simply because someone (anyone) was offended, everything anyone says becomes fair game for such action.    Do you really want to have to measure what you say that closely??

[iacas]

Free Speech? No. Not a valid argument. For example, hate speech isn't protected. You can't say whatever you want without legal repercussions.

[saevel25]

Let me post the First Amendment here for you:

Are you under the impression that I am a member of Congress, or any governmental agency? That my posts here carry the power of law?

All I'm doing is using the rights afforded to my by the previously posted First Amendment as a small part of an effort to impact the Redskins' public reception and, ultimately, their bottom line.

100% correct, freedom of speech only applies to the government and any laws created.

Now that does not mean that a court could find the term "Redskins" offensive and as such award punitive damages towards those who are offended. So if the Washington Redskins want to get into a civil legal battle, they could get hit pretty hard I think. They have the right to Freedom of Speech, but they must accept responsibility for what they say. It's like saying "FIRE" or "BOMB" in a movie theater. No law can say you can't say that, but you could be charged with other crimes for the damage caused by that action. Out right banning a word, and legal action against its effect in society are two separate things.

If I was the of Indian descent, I might consider a civil class action law suite against the Washington Redskins for punitive damages due to the advertisement and use of that racist word.

[teamroper60]

Are you under the impression that I am a member of Congress, or any governmental agency? That my posts here carry the power of law?

All I'm doing is using the rights afforded to my by the previously posted First Amendment as a small part of an effort to impact the Redskins' public reception and, ultimately, their bottom line.

No, I don't believe you are a member of Congress.    But let me ask you this...    Your comment was that if any people are offended, it should not be allowed.   What would you think if I decided to sue you because your opinion and your posts offended me?   Using your comments, I should win and you should be restricted from disagreeing with me.    How would that sit with you?

You see, I support your right to not agree with me and I support your right to not like the team name.   What I don't support is the concept that simply because anyone or any group is offended, is reason enough to restrict the right of another' speech.

[teamroper60]

100% correct, freedom of speech only applies to the government and any laws created.

Now that does not mean that a court could find the term "Redskins" offensive and as such award punitive damages towards those who are offended. So if the Washington Redskins want to get into a civil legal battle, they could get hit pretty hard I think. They have the right to Freedom of Speech, but they must accept responsibility for what they say. It's like saying "FIRE" or "BOMB" in a movie theater. No law can say you can't say that, but you could be charged with other crimes for the damage caused by that action. Out right banning a word, and legal action against its effect in society are two separate things.

If I was the of Indian descent, I might consider a civil class action law suite against the Washington Redskins for punitive damages due to the advertisement and use of that racist word.

Yelling fire or bomb in a movie theater is a far cry from being on par with a sports team name.

Let me ask you this............    You are quite obviously an Ohio State alum and fan.    Their team name is the Buckeyes and many people from the state refer to themselves and other people from Ohio as "buckeyes".    The buckeye tree produces a nut.  What if someone decided they did not like being called a buckeye because in their interpretation, you just called them a nut (crazy).    Should OSU be forced to change their team name because somebody felt they were offended by the Buckeye name?

[billchao]

As I said, unless fans vote with their pocketbook to force a change, it will take legal action to cause Snyder to make a name change.

I have an issue with that as a defense, though. Why should all decisions be made based on their profitability? Honestly, I think there's a little too much of that going on nowadays. If something is a moral or ethical issue, the decisions should be made with morality as the reasoning, not economics (OT, but think GM). [Rule] I originally answered no, but I'd like to change my position. I feel as if the team being "Redskins" is exploitive. It takes advantage of a relatively small minority group that a lot of people don't deal with on any regular basis. It's easier to ignore their dissent. What if the team were the Washington N-Words?

[saevel25]

Yelling fire or bomb in a movie theater is a far cry from a sports team name.

Let me ask you this............    You are quite obviously an Ohio State alum and fan.    Their team name is the Buckeyes and many people from the state refer to themselves and other people from Ohio as "buckeyes".    The buckeye tree produces a nut.  What if someone decided they did not like being called a buckeye because in their interpretation, you just called them a nut (crazy).    Should OSU be forced to change their team name because somebody felt they were offended by the name?

That is up to the level in which the school is willing to take on the negative effects of such a name. Since a no one in their right mind would make that correlation between a Buckeye and a crazy person, it really doesn't matter. That example isn't nearly on the same level as a racist term used to describe a minority of people who through out history have been brushed aside as their whole civilizations have been taken over. Especially when this football team is making millions exploiting this term. Basically I think the Washington Redskins owe the Native American nation a lot of punitive damages.

My point about yelling Fire was that freedom of speech isn't a free reign to say what you want, well it is, but there are consequences as well. In that regard the relationship works.

[teamroper60]

Free Speech?

No. Not a valid argument. For example, hate speech isn't protected. You can't say whatever you want without legal repercussions.

Actually, hate speech is not protected only when it creates a threat of imminent violence.   Otherwise, it is still protected, regardless of how offensive any particular individual or group may find it............

[jamo]

No, I don't believe you are a member of Congress.

Terrific. :-) And I apologize for wording my previous post a little harshly. [quote name="teamroper60" url="/t/70604/political-correctness-how-far-should-it-go-should-the-washington-redskins-change-their-name/150_30#post_1003590"]But let me ask you this...    Your comment was that if any people are offended, it should not be allowed.   [/quote] I didn't use the word "allowed" at all. I said: [quote name="jamo" url="/t/70604/political-correctness-how-far-should-it-go-should-the-washington-redskins-change-their-name/120_30#post_1003370"] Because it should be enough that any people are offended by the name. Why are we (and I say "we" meaning football fans, the VAST majority of whom are not Native Americans) using their likenesses at all for our entertainment? Especially if we're using a stereotypical image and racist term to refer to them, and super especially of a people who historically have been treated like utter horseshit by an invading population of people to their own land. [/quote] I thought that was more of the personal responsibility angle than anything. [quote name="teamroper60" url="/t/70604/political-correctness-how-far-should-it-go-should-the-washington-redskins-change-their-name/150_30#post_1003590"]What would you think if I decided to sue you because your opinion and your posts offended me?   Using your comments, I should win and you should be restricted from disagreeing with me.    How would that sit with you?[/quote] Again, I've not mentioned a lawsuit, or legal action at all. I don't want to sue the Redskins or the NFL, nor do I think I would want to take legal action if I were Native American. I don't even love the idea of courts being involved.

[Phil McGleno]

If the team was called the Washington Niggers nobody who wasn't the worst kind of asshat would be in favor of keeping the name---Yet thats what it is except its a racist negative word for Indians instead.

[teamroper60]

That is up to the level in which the school is willing to take on the negative effects of such a name. Since a no one in their right mind would make that correlation between a Buckeye and a crazy person, it really doesn't matter.

And my point is that it should be up to Snyder to decide how much negative effects he finds in such a name.   You say that no one would make a correlation between a buckeye and a crazy person and you might be right.   But then again, because I knew about the nut produced by the Buckeye tree, I was able off the top of my head to come up with that analogy.   Don't you think some lawyer couldn't do the same if in fact someone wanted to sue over the name?  Now, I agree that it is an unlikely scenario but then again, 10 years ago, this discussion would have been unlikely as well, as nobody was complaining about the Redskins name back then.

[14ledo81]

If the team was called the Washington Niggers nobody who wasn't the worst kind of asshat would be in favor of keeping the name---Yet thats what it is except its a racist negative word for Indians instead.

Why then are some in favor of keeping it? More people are asshats toward natives?

[billchao]

Why then are some in favor of keeping it? More people are asshats toward natives?

They're a smaller group of people. Chances are, you don't know one, never met one, and never will (not saying you in the personal sense but the general sense). It's much easier to ignore their voice because you don't identify with them.

[Phil McGleno]

Just cuz a few people might like the name doesnt mean the majority should be ignored.-Its the equivalent name to "RedSkin".[quote name="14ledo81" url="/t/70604/political-correctness-how-far-should-it-go-should-the-washington-redskins-change-their-name/144#post_1003611"] Why then are some in favor of keeping it? More people are asshats toward natives?[/quote]

[teamroper60]

I didn't use the word "allowed" at all. I said:

I thought that was more of the personal responsibility angle than anything.

Again, I've not mentioned a lawsuit, or legal action at all. I don't want to sue the Redskins or the NFL, nor do I think I would want to take legal action if I were Native American. I don't even love the idea of courts being involved.

Ok, you didn't specifically say allowed, but your angle on personal responsibility implies that it should not be allowed because it offended somebody.    As you also pointed out, just about anything said can be construed to offend somebody.    My belief (and argument here) is that we have gone too far when we reach the point that if anybody is offended by something said, it is an egregious offense.

I am with you 100% in not wanting the courts involved but someone asked how I felt the first amendment became involved and IMHO that is how it will become an issue.