Rammy Allouche

Mr. Burnham
US Government
10 October 2014
OP-ED
Our government, designed to create a perfect union for its citizens, is actively
looking to protect the people it represents. This is the direction it should be heading but it
must still be careful not to go too far. Our representatives, and thusly the government, are
losing their ability to relate to the people. As a result, as evidenced in Riley vs. California
and the FCCs stance against the Redskins, we see that the government is growing and
making efforts to protect its citizens best interests, although our best interests may not be
clear enough.
In Riley, the Supreme Court held in favor of protecting civil liberties. Police
searched David Rileys phone, which was ultimately deemed unconstitutional, to find
evidence used to convict him. The Supreme Court was able to rule on behalf of citizens
rights by determining that finding digital information is unreasonable, as it would not put
an officer in immediate harm. Deemed unreasonable, the search then violated Rileys 4th
amendment rights. While the Supreme Court got it right, neither the District Court nor
state Supreme Court did however, and thats scary. Shouldnt the courts closest to the
people be the most for the people? Luckily the judicial review set the standard for future
cell phone cases, but in a progressive time, this shouldnt have been a debate. Still
though, our elected representatives are regarding the constitution too strictly for what it
actually is: a document almost 300 years old. The world as we know it may be growing

faster than our government is adapting, and although we, the people, got lucky with this
ruling, we may not in the future. The Supreme Court was big enough to correct the
situation but the other levels are too small compared to where we are as a people and
must catch up to the needs of its citizens to actually provide a perfect union.

While it took a big government in Riley to protect its citizens, the FCC may be
becoming too big too fast. It feels they have the power to influence and, ultimately, ban
NFL team names, specifically the Washington Redskins. The FCCs duties, as granted by
Congress, involve enforcing laws regarding obscene, indecent, and profane language. The
FCC is considering banning the term redskin, feeling it is too inappropriate to be
permitted for use on airwaves. But is the term redskin actually profane, defined as
language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to
amount to a nuisance? Washington Redskins supporters suggest that the FCCs potential
influence would infringe on the team, a private organizations right to freedom of speech.
With accordance to Roth vs. United States, profane material is not actually protected
under the 1st Amendment. Therefore, if deemed as such, redskin would be banned over
airwaves in compliance with Roth. Whereas obscenity and indecency are held to a
checklist, profanity is judged only by its public offensiveness. Therein, is it any one
government commissions right to determine whether a term is so grossly offensive on
behalf of the public? The government should not be able to make a decision regarding a
subjective matter such as this for its people, and no data supports that people are offended
by the term. Over a million Redskins tickets have been sold in the last 12 years alone.
During his rookie year, Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III was among league
leaders in jersey sales. Forbes determined that the Redskins were the 3rd most valuable

team in the NFL. If the people were actually offended, wouldnt the numbers reflect that?
As a result, the people, as a whole, are not offended thus the government is overstepping
its boundaries. The government is trying too hard in this case to stand by its people but is
not necessarily representing them or their needs. Thankfully though, we have a
government willing to stand up for those who can not stand up for themselves, and until
the FCC actually takes action, rather than just be in consideration, we should be glad our
government is there for us when we need it to be.

It is becoming evident that a bigger government is necessary to carry out certain

tasks in a growing society, but it must be careful not to overstep its boundaries. It seems
as though our government is not on the same page regarding size but it should be large in
nature but small in action. This would help the people when needed but not attempt to
interfere too often.

Sources

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2014/10/02/fcc-to-consider-petition-to-banuse-of-redskins-nickname-on-airwaves/

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/whodecides/firstamendment.html