Isn’t that a bit dated — didn’t they report that they’d changed their ruling so that things would only be banned if the tribe/group referenced by the name/nickname was actually offended by it? I know SI said that happened; perhaps they were incorrect, though?
Isn’t that a bit dated — didn’t they report that they’d changed their ruling so that things would only be banned if the tribe/group referenced by the name/nickname was actually offended by it? I know SI said that happened; perhaps they were incorrect, though?
Wow. I completely trackbacked to the wrong article. I am WICKED sorry, Kevin. Please accept my sincere apologies.