Comments on: Words you can’t say on TV: the team-name edition

By: C

Wed, 08 Oct 2014 01:10:14 +0000

The petition challenges Redskins as “fighting words”, among other things. Really? You’re arguing that when a broadcast uses the term, it’s likely to cause an immediate breach the peace? How can you argue this with a straight face?

… oh, I forgot. You don’t need to “win” so long as you can pressure the broadcasters.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 00:07:38 +0000

Professor Banzhaf: If you’re going to bother responding to an argument, you could, you know, actually respond to the argument. You do cite people who agree with your position, but unless those people continued to express agreement with you *after* hearing the argument you’re responding to, that really doesn’t count. If they find your argument persuasive, they may also find Eugene Volokh’s argument persuasive.

By: Boblipton

Boblipton — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 23:08:21 +0000

I am grown suspicious. Given the statements made here, I urge Walter to check to see if whoever replied at the top of the comments is actually Professor Banzhaf or is spoofing.

Bob

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 22:15:28 +0000

“On the other side are former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, two other former commissions of the FCC, and almost a dozen other lawyers who, unlike Volokh, specialize in federal broadcast law – now with words of support from the current Chairman and two current commissioners.”

I don’t think we could have asked for a more perfect example of Argument From Authority.

By: Crabtree

Crabtree — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 20:55:15 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you just openly admit that you have no real interest in whether or not your suit has merit? That you intend to proceed anyway? Isn’t that usually a BAD thing to admit? Doesn’t that run counter to the whole “serving the public interest” motive you claim?

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:27:59 +0000

So, what you are saying is; “Who cares if it is legal, so long as we get the result we want”?

By: C

Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:26:43 +0000

“I may well be able to achieve my goals even if the courts ultimately rule against me.”

Using the courts in this manner is an abuse of the system. You are doing a bad thing and you should feel bad.

By: MattS

MattS — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:59:35 +0000

“and almost a dozen other lawyers who, unlike Volokh, specialize in federal broadcast law”

Prof Volokh is however an expert in First Amendment law, which is where your effort against the team name goes wrong.

By: Boblipton

Boblipton — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:03:46 +0000

So, Professor Banzhaf’s plan is based on the thesis that even if there is no basis on which he can win by law, he can bully people into doing what he wishes anyway, so that’s fine.

Bob

By: Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf

Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:18:12 +0000

Let’s see. On one side is Volokh and Volokh again.

On the other side are former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, two other former commissions of the FCC, and almost a dozen other lawyers who, unlike Volokh, specialize in federal broadcast law – now with words of support from the current Chairman and two current commissioners.

Moreover, as several commentators (including those opposed to my action) have pointed out, I may well be able to achieve my goals even if the courts ultimately rule against me.

That, by the way, is what happened when I helped file a similar petition, likewise based on racism, against a DC-area TV station for refusing to feature Blacks as on-air reporters. Within a few months, all major TV stations in DC had begun putting Blacks on the air as reporters, because no station want its license renewal held up for months or even years.

Years later, the petitioners lost in court, but, as the court itself observed in thanking us for our efforts, we had won:

““The participation of petitioners in this case was effective in forcing WMAL to conform its prospective ascertainment to current FCC standards, and in pointing out that future deviation will not be tolerated. We do NOT view this as defeat for petitioners, but as SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC INTERVENTION which this court has consistently welcomed as serving the public interest.”