The team? Well, after watching Kirk Cousins throw three interceptions in a single quarter, I suppose an argument can be made that the level of the Redskins’ play is pretty indecent. Especially if you live in Washington DC, but hey, YMMV, especially in Dallas, Philadelphia, and the part of New York that’s actually in New Jersey.

Oh, wait … we’re talking about the team name that has been used on countless broadcasts for decades? FCC chair Tom Wheeler pledged to address that issue after a petition to the agency demanding action:

The head of the Federal Communications Commission says the agency will consider a petition to ban the Washington Redskins nickname from the public airwaves.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says Tuesday that the commission “will be dealing with that issue on the merits, and we’ll be responding accordingly.”

A law professor has challenged the use of the name on broadcast television, saying it violates FCC rules against indecent content. Native American and other groups have demanded the name be changed, calling it a racial slur.

At first blush, this looks like a ridiculous response. However, it may just be a CYA move required by the FCC. The agency does allow the public to petition for new rules as well as to comment on pending actions. Are they required to actually consider every petition, no matter how cursory the examination, as part of that process? If so, then Wheeler’s response is just a pro forma recognition of the receipt of the demand. If not, then it sounds like Wheeler is taking it seriously — and unfortunately, the FCC’s website doesn’t actually state whether the FCC is bound to consider every petition formally submitted to the agency.

Assuming Wheeler wants to actually cogitate for more than a brief moment on this question, the move is both ridiculous and dangerous. It’s ridiculous because the FCC has not even weighed in on this kind of question in the past, despite the team’s name predating commercial television and most commercial radio broadcasts. The silliness extends to the language that the FCC doesn’t treat as indecent, such as certain terms in popular music over the last three decades or so. Of course, it doesn’t help that the FCC’s standard for indecency is ambiguous, subjective, and linked to context and time of day. However, even that ambiguous standard does not include any mention of offense regarding race, ethnicity, or gender as a trigger for a ruling of indecency:

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

Of course, the FCC could try to rewrite its rules on indecency, but that may run into a fight with Congress. Such a move, if allowed, could have huge ramifications. What else might the FCC decide is “indecent” and force off the air between 6 AM and 10 PM each day? “Limited government”? “Federalism”? Both have been cited at times by progressives as code words for racism in political debate, so why not petition the FCC to silence any mention of them? Especially since both remain popular despite attempts to demagogue the debate over the proper form and role of government — a debate that includes this issue now, too, if Wheeler gives this any serious look.