OT: Redskins trademark revoked

[East Coast Mustang]

But liberals are like the little wimps on the playground who run and tattle to the teacher (the federal government) whenever they can't get their way.

How does this add anything to your argument? "Liberals" is the out for everything right wing. Keep preaching

I'm saying let the market determine whether something is offensive or not. If it is, it will eventually change. Opponents of the name are free to educate people on their point of view, boycott, and protest to achieve this end. But devaluing the value of a private asset through government intervention because of your ultra-PC viewpoint (that almost no else gives a [deleted] about) is stupid in my opinion

[PSCA]

I was trying to find it to post, but I could not locate it. There was a poll taken about 10-12 years ago asking Native Americans if they were/are offended by the "Redskins" name ... 90% responded no. Fast forward to 2014, I guess that percentage might have dropped some. Again, two years ago I had a 30min conversation with a Indian Chief of a large So Cal Nation that was wearing a "Redskins" visor. People and groups get offended everyday about something ... and with the melting pot that is America, this will grow. Where do you draw the line, because you can not please everybody and police their hurt feelings. Not all issues are defcon 5 (separate of the offended party), nor should they be, and not all outrage is genuine or sincere in motive ... not suggesting that is the case now.

I understand the sentiments of some in the Native American communities, but I believe that is a small percentage. What do you tell the large numbers that like the name and believe it honors their proud heritage. You are right ECM, there is more than the one predominately Native American HS that uses the Redskins or some other tribal nickname, and over 60 HS in the US use the Redskins nickname.

I'm not trying to be insensitive to anyone or group ... we need to be respectful to each other ... but Political correctness is out of control IMO. The PC police (Dem and GOP) is everywhere with a cause for everything.

[Stallion]

Let the Markets decide? You do realize this is a ridiculously stupid argument that would be laughed out of Court. Should the market decide whether slavery should exist or whether African Americans were entitled to equal protection of the laws in the Deep South in the 1960s, or whether segregation should exist or whether minorities were entitled the equal rights to access to education, public accommodations and housing. Jerry LeVias and progeny would likely never had an opportunity in the 1960s in the Deep south with such an offensive majority rule. Babble on with that kind of nonsense-just realize that patently absurd nonsense will be destroyed in a Court of Law. The United States is a Constitutional republic that guarantees all of its citizens equal protection under the laws and that includes even the smallest minority. No majority vote to suppress even a small minority can withstand constitutional muster that denies equal protection. The real issue is whether there is a denial of equal protection based on a trademark law that allows an ostensible racial slur to be used with the protection of the US Trademark law- not 98% of the nonsense on this thread and especially NOT the concerns of the majority or the market. Its amazing how constitutionally illiterate many Americans are. This issue will be decided based on evidence as to whether the term "Redskins" is an offensive racial slur entitled to protection under the law. I've given about 6 examples of common racial slurs based on the color of one's skin that likely wouldn't withstand constitutional muster. A rational argument would be to introduce evidence that the term Redskins is not a racial slur probably by testimony from the Indian community that they don't consider the use of that term in relation to a professional football team to be an offensive slur-they may testify that it is positive.

[RGV Pony]

Yeah

[couch 'em]

Interesting relevant article. What a weird day when Slate argues the name is OK while quoting Fox News people who find it offensive.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html

" In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign."

Redskin, he learned, had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on."

[Pony!Poni!Pone'!]

friend of mine is governor of one of the northern Pueblos of NM. When this came out he changed his facebook photo to the Redskins logo and he takes this position (title of the article is Removing Redskins Name Is Another Step Toward Erasing Native Americans From American Culture

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/washin ... uffer08bcd

[East Coast Mustang]

Let's all pause and be amused for a moment at the most offensive and disparaging user in this forum's history suddenly pretending to be some noble proponent of social justice in the face of "offensive" material:

Let the Markets decide? You do realize this is a ridiculously stupid argument that would be laughed out of Court. Should the market decide whether slavery should exist or whether African Americans were entitled to equal protection of the laws in the Deep South in the 1960s, or whether segregation should exist or whether minorities were entitled the equal rights to access to education, public accommodations and housing. Jerry LeVias and progeny would likely never had an opportunity in the 1960s in the Deep south with such an offensive majority rule. Babble on with that kind of nonsense-just realize that patently absurd nonsense will be destroyed in a Court of Law. The United States is a Constitutional republic that guarantees all of its citizens equal protection under the laws and that includes even the smallest minority. No majority vote to suppress even a small minority can withstand constitutional muster that denies equal protection. The real issue is whether there is a denial of equal protection based on a trademark law that allows an ostensible racial slur to be used with the protection of the US Trademark law- not 98% of the nonsense on this thread and especially NOT the concerns of the majority or the market. Its amazing how constitutionally illiterate many Americans are.

Right, because the nickname of a sports team is totally and completely analogous to slavery and segregation in the Deep South. I went to FedEx Field for a game a few years ago and surprisingly enough, Blacks were allowed into the stadium along with Whites and Native Americans and Latinos and every other race of people. Also, I'm pretty sure the people working at the stadium were actually being paid to do so and allowed to go home afterwards and were not Dan Snyder's slavehands. This isn't the seminal civil rights issue of our time - it's the name of a sports team. Get some perspective.

This issue will be decided based on evidence as to whether the term "Redskins" is an offensive racial slur entitled to protection under the law. I've given about 6 examples of common racial slurs based on the color of one's skin that likely wouldn't withstand constitutional muster. A rational argument would be to introduce evidence that the term Redskins is not a racial slur probably by testimony from the Indian community that they don't consider the use of that term in relation to a professional football team to be an offensive slur-they may testify that it is positive.

Yeah, I provided some of that evidence one page back and you just ignored it, as you often do any points that are made which logically refute your arguments. Must be a tactic they teach at Tech Law.

[East Coast Mustang]

My biggest issue is why should the government be allowed to suddenly revoke a trademark that was granted decades ago and diminish the value of a privately owned asset? Even the ACLU, which I assume Stallion is a card-carrying member of, agrees this ruling is an overreach:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/r ... rong-legal

[Arkpony]

Once this starts (and it has) there is no way to stop it. It's entirely subjective and depends on the viewpoint of 3 people. Can Jeep Cherokee keep their trademark now? Where does it stop!!! SEE?????? PC is running amok!

[ponyboy]

Actually liberals (or anyone else) choose to use the government as the 'bully pulpit and stick' on an issue at any time, for any cause, for one reason....because it works.

Sure it works. So does shooting someone in the head and other forms of coercion. But that's not what this country is supposed to be about. You can force me to comply with your views on the subject. But what happens when I show up to force you?

The fact is there are legitimate arguments on both sides. The government has no legal right to do this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stallion]

East Coast your comments on the Constitution and legal issues is about relevant as Big 12's comments on College Football. For a guy that has 10 opinions on every legal issue perhaps you should take your own advice and stop posting until you familiarize yourself with the issues. BTW I haven't taken a position on the Redskins debate-which obviously flew over your head-other than the suggest that the term Redskins is a term that is likely going to have to overcome the presumption of a racial slur until proven otherwise by evidence. The fact that it meets the prima facie definition of a slur is shown by this second denial of trademark usage. A prima facie case can be overcome with other evidence. I would think a historical reference to a tribe such as Seminole or Cherokee would have a much easier burden of proof than a name simply referring to the color of ones skin as I've said regarding at least 6 examples. I'd bet the legal precedent would show that a simple reference to a color of a particular race is much more suspect than a historic reference to an actual tribe with no inherent negative connotations

[ponyboy]

I believe the standard is not whether the term is currently considered a slur, but "whether the trademarks were viewed as disparaging at the time they were registered."

The first test is open to significant debate. The second is not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[East Coast Mustang]

East Coast your comments on the Constitution and legal issues is about relevant as Big 12's comments on College Football. For a guy that has 10 opinions on every legal issue perhaps you should take your own advice and stop posting until you familiarize yourself with the issues.

Please stop acting like you're the end-all, be-all legal authority here. Your ad hominem tirades often reflect poorly on you.

Since you think I'm some idiotic conservative, I'll let the ACLU's legislative counsel (who chose Georgetown Law over Tech) speak for me:

"The term 'Redskins' absolutely shouldn't front the jersey of an American sports franchise. Government coercion, however, isn't the way to make it right. Public pressure? Now we're with you on that."

[ponyboy]

Many hold equality in higher regard than freedom, legitimate process, and the rule of law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[smustatesman]

Question : Was it really ethically right in the "Redskins" case for a three panel, unelected council at the Trademark Department to take away the exclusivity that a trademark confers on private/personal or intellectual property that was previously granted, thus effecting the property value. Also, now under Dodd-Frank; The Consumer Protection Department can shut down ANY firm, private or public by acussing it of breaking a law. And, until the company proves in a court of US law that it has not done such, it stays closed. I'm so glad now that our unelected bureaucrats can operate on a whim of their own, with little to no personal consequences of their own.