What would the FCC say about it?
“Hey guys, I am just going to have you leave. You said a couple words that break FCC violations,” the manager says, according to the video, which appears to be lightly edited for time. “And so for today I am going to have you stop your show. Specifically tranny. That is a hate slur it is not allowed on radio. I need you to leave.”
Hate slur? Is tranny a prohibited word? Why no, that’s not one of the seven words you can’t say on air.
“Did you really have to call the police?” the students ask.
“Yes,” she responds.
“It’s a violation, you are breaking the law,” she continued. “I just need to enter a report. …”
“That is a specific hate speech word never allowed on radio,” she tells the students as they pack up, “in the same way that you can never say ‘cocksucker’ on radio.”
Discussions of overt censorship over baseless claims of law rarely are quite as flagrant as what happened here.
But what about people’s feelings? To many, the word “tranny” is offensive, whether for themselves or on behalf of others, using their privilege to sanitize speech lest some unknown marginalized and vulnerable person be subject to hearing this “hate slur.”
Even motorheads aren’t immune, just as the word “housemaster” had to be eliminated as it reminded some of the suffering of slaves even if it bore no connection whatsoever.
Does it matter that the manager was utterly wrong on the law? Hardly. She shut down the program, with the help of an officer who might have been expected to know better.
“Upon further consultation with University officials, we have come to the conclusion that our language concerns have been determined to not be in violation of FCC community standards.”
Nice of them to eventually figure out they were wrong, but that does nothing to change the fact that they shut them down first.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rupaul says “tranny” is fine, so I take it as established that it is a non-aspersive term. I have noticed on some websites, there are those who deem it “offensive” or “okay” depending on who is using it.
Just because Rupaul is self-loathing doesn’t mean more woke people who aren’t transgender should be forced to hear such hate slurs.
When I last researched this a couple of years ago, that’s what it appeared to be about. A bunch of lesbian, gay and batshit leftist people had decided trannies weren’t adequately standing up for themselves. Accordingly, the lesbians, gays and batshit leftists paternalistically appointed themselves to speak for trannies, and tried to declare “tranny” a “hate slur,” even though that position was not supported by actual trannies. Evidently that has now succeeded at least to the point that some completely incompetent station manager thinks the word is “a violation of the FCC laws.”
I must defer, then, to you vast tranny knowledge. I have not yet done a survey.
My vast political correctness knowledge, achieved via the magic of the Inetrnet.
Ordnung! Shut the down and check the law later. We must have Order!
Is that it, or do the kids presume the law to be whatever confirms their feelings, and thus they are not merely righteous, but right?
Well, in this case, it appears to have been the administration and not the “kids.” Unless your definition of “kids” includes middle aged white women. (Which, come to think of it, is a valid as considering 19 year old gangbangers as “children”)
What makes you say the student station manager was a middle-aged white woman? Are you seriously that ageist?
I am aged and therefore cannot be ageist. (At least that’s the way it seems to work for Persons of Color).
So you’re going with the senility defense. Got it.
What??? Sorry, I dozed off there for a bit.
Checking the AP Style Manual, to which some sites subscribe as their standard of permissible speech and thought, it seems “journalists” now deem it politically improper to refer to someone’s transgender status at all, unless it is critical to the topic (i.e., if they are in a bathroom lawsuit or some such, where the status issue is central). Rather, the current PC convention is apparently to simply refer to the person according to the person’s subjective gender perception.
This isn’t a surprise, nor really a concern. If the norm is that gender is what a person chooses it to be, rather than genitalia at birth, why not?
But there will come times when it matters, such as at the end of a date or when a proposal of marriage includes the hope of offspring. Biology and anatomy are unlikely to change to suit social justice, but otherwise, who gives a damn? People can be whatever they want to be as far as I’m concerned, until it impacts others.
It is only a problem when police or EMS find a tranny dead or unconscious at an accident or crime scene, and improvidently make premature statements, which journalists then improvidently report, inadvertently “misgendering” the tranny in the press. This “misgendering” (sometimes accompanied by “deadnaming” based on the tranny’s driver’s license) is one of the most common complaints I see online from activists who actually claim to be trannies. Often, they accuse the police of doing it deliberately. In such circumstances, it would probably be safer for the officials and media to stick with the generic term “person,” rather than risk a pronoun/gender identity determination that could be flawed.
Sometimes, things don’t happen quite the way you expect.
Under the current LGBTQA Narrative, it is probably transphobic to not have relations with a person you misgendered until the clothes came off. At least that seems the way things are headed.
Making transgender a suspect classification for discrimination raises a plethora of issues that don’t arise in other classes. Whether it would constitute Title IX discrimination for refusing to have sex after learning the person with whom you had a lovely date and consented to sex is one of them. Ridiculous as it sounds, it’s a very real issue.
GLAAD’s “Media Style Guide” now deems “tranny” to be “derogatory,” and pompously declares, “Please note that while some transgender people may use “tranny” to describe themselves, others find it profoundly offensive.” So, sure, we supposed to go with the “others” who “deem,” because, what the Hell do trannies know anyway?
Who in this picture disrespects and dehumanizes trannies? I think it is the people who officially decided the opinions of trannies don’t count.
Which legal term of art am I reaching for here? Could it be “prior restraint”?
Kinda. They weren’t shut down in anticipation (they already uttered the T word), but for a completely wrong reason.
The best response from the folks who used the alleged offensive term would have been something like “Where the fuck did you pull that goddamn bullshit idea from? Your cunt or your ass?” If you are going to get shut down, you might as well make it worthwhile.
I wonder which, if any, of those words would make them start to shake?
On another note, why would one expect the officer to know better? “Hope,” perhaps, but “expect” is too much of a stretch, especially for a campus cop at a rural agricultural college in Left Nosehair, Minnesota.
Even campus cops have the ability to exercise some discretion as to the prohibited word of the day and what’s worthy of their armed intervention.
U Minn. Morris has cause to be glum.
On its point seven Kilo ERP sum,
Plays its station so lame
It can’t say its own name:
“You heard it on Radio KUMM!”