CBS Sports chairman says use of the name 'Redskins' will be up to announcers

[blue4]

On free speech issues, the government SHOULDN'T be taking any side. And those making the free speech are only lobbying the government to stay out of it, as they should.

The Government takes a side on free speech almost ever time the Supreme Court sets down. And, after the mighty government stepped in, I guess the Redskins changed their name under force? What did they change it to? They lost their trademark, yes. From what I read, and I'm no lawyer, there is some logic to the reason. You can't trademark a racial slur. Who decides if it's a slur? Dan Snyder? Native Americans? Well, both sides will lawyer up and the government will have to, regardless of whose party is in the white house. Seems as if Democracy, however sloppy, is working to me.

Or, Nazis.

 

[Thordaddy]

My only point is both sides of any issue in America lobby the government to take their side. They have a right to, that's why we have a representative government.

Or, Nazis. I guess it depends on your point of view.

To help them violate the constitution,are you kidding me?
I think you've spoken to several other ONLY points ,and this is something the government is supposed to but the fuck out of and I don't see where Snyder started any lobbying to force anyone to do anything except to defend his right to his copyright,which BTW protects consumers so they KNOW what they are buying.

The Nazi reference is in reference to the desire to control the speech of others something I detest and those who use it to get their power as well,the vast majority of American Indians like the name and the vast majority of American view this the same,it's a tyrannical minority trying to ride herd over a smaller minority and thereby the majority.

blue4 said "We'll have to disagree. I'm not going to argue with someone who sees Hitler in every corner"
But I tire of not arguing with you

 

[blue4]

I must reiterate that I, blue4, can see both sides arguments as having some merit. I'm merely trying to point that out.

I personally don't care who wins. Call them whatever you want, there're just a football team. A football team that has always sucked.

 

[Boffo97]

The Government takes a side on free speech almost ever time the Supreme Court sets down. And, after the mighty government stepped in, I guess the Redskins changed their name under force? What did they change it to? They lost their trademark, yes. From what I read, and I'm no lawyer, there is some logic to the reason. You can't trademark a racial slur. Who decides if it's a slur? Dan Snyder? Native Americans? Well, both sides will lawyer up and the government will have to, regardless of whose party is in the white house. Seems as if Democracy, however sloppy, is working to me.

Or, Nazis.

And the law saying that one can have their trademark taken away because a panel of 3 unelected bureaucrats decide it's a slur is wrong and unconstitutional.

So, again, you're still left with that same issue with people trying to force the government to step in because they're offended. THAT. IS. NOT. THE. GOVERNMENT'S. JOB.

 

[blue4]

And the law saying that one can have their trademark taken away because a panel of 3 unelected bureaucrats decide it's a slur is wrong and unconstitutional.

So, again, you're still left with that same issue with people trying to force the government to step in because they're offended. THAT. IS. NOT. THE. GOVERNMENT'S. JOB.

Then write your congressmen. I wrote mine when the appointed supreme court declared corporations people. It's the way it works.

 

[blue4]

To help them violate the constitution,are you kidding me?
I think you've spoken to several other ONLY points ,and this is something the government is supposed to but the freak out of and I don't see where Snyder started any lobbying to force anyone to do anything except to defend his right to his copyright,which BTW protects consumers so they KNOW what they are buying.

The Nazi reference is in reference to the desire to control the speech of others something I detest and those who use it to get their power as well,the vast majority of American Indians like the name and the vast majority of American view this the same,it's a tyrannical minority trying to ride herd over a smaller minority and thereby the majority.

blue4 said "We'll have to disagree. I'm not going to argue with someone who sees Hitler in every corner"
But I tire of not arguing with you

I feel I must point out that I was talking to Boffo97. If you're tired of not arguing with me than stop. I'm not denying that everyone has a point (for like the 10th time). I do believe you've went over the top with the Nazi talk simply because I don't see the issue as black or white.

 

[RhodyRams]

opcorn:

 

[Thordaddy]

Then write your congressmen. I wrote mine when the appointed supreme court declared corporations people. It's the way it works.

Well I hope you were in support

 

[Thordaddy]

I feel I must point out that I was talking to Boffo97. If you're tired of not arguing with me than stop. I'm not denying that everyone has a point (for like the 10th time). I do believe you've went over the top with the Nazi talk simply because I don't see the issue as black or white.

That came out of a post where you quoted me,so IMA say you're a little confused

 

[blue4]

Well I hope you were in support

No, I don't think corporations are people. I don't think they should be able to give unlimited bribes to government leaders, or make decisions in people's personal lives. I find that far more dangerous than a trademark battle.

 

[blue4]

That came out of a post where you quoted me,so IMA say you're a little confused

You quoted my response to Boffo, I'm not confused.

 

[VegasRam]

"If you're tired of not arguing with me than stop." alm:

As in, "if my phone still ain't ringing, I assume it still ain't you".

 

[Boffo97]

Then write your congressmen. I wrote mine when the appointed supreme court declared corporations people. It's the way it works.

I'm from California. My congresspeople are useless and have been for some time.

I'm also allowed to SAY a law is unconstitutional because, again, free speech. The problem you're not getting is even if you happen to agree or not that this case is supposedly okay because it's a "racial slur" (which falls apart when you point out the 95%+ Native American Student and Administration high schools who use the "Redskins" as their mascot name), the same law can be used to say that any term should have its protection removed.

As far as the corporations are people thing, it depends on the context of the ruling. I do agree fully with the recent ruling that those who run closely held corporations should not lose their Constitutional rights just because they started a business.

 

[blue4]

I'm from California. My congresspeople are useless and have been for some time.

I'm also allowed to SAY a law is unconstitutional because, again, free speech. The problem you're not getting is even if you happen to agree or not that this case is supposedly okay because it's a "racial slur" (which falls apart when you point out the 95%+ Native American Student and Administration high schools who use the "Redskins" as their mascot name), the same law can be used to say that any term should have its protection removed.

As far as the corporations are people thing, it depends on the context of the ruling. I do agree fully with the recent ruling that those who run closely held corporations should not lose their Constitutional rights just because they started a business.

I've been in support of free speech this entire time. You certainly can believe a law is unconstitutional, and you have every right to try and make it so.
Yes, you are right that the same law can be used to say any term should have its protection removed. But if you change that law, who gets to decide which terms are unchangeable? Those 3 pencil pushers? The president? Any law that gets passed a different congress can revoke. This is as it should be to me.

I believe once you go public, you should go all the way. If you wanted certain rights, keep your company private. How much stock has to pass out of their hands before the term closely held no longer applies? I didn't read if they ruled on that or not.

 

[Boffo97]

I've been in support of free speech this entire time. You certainly can believe a law is unconstitutional, and you have every right to try and make it so.
Yes, you are right that the same law can be used to say any term should have its protection removed. But if you change that law, who gets to decide which terms are unchangeable? Those 3 pencil pushers? The president? Any law that gets passed a different congress can revoke. This is as it should be to me.

I believe once you go public, you should go all the way. If you wanted certain rights, keep your company private. How much stock has to pass out of their hands before the term closely held no longer applies? I didn't read if they ruled on that or not.

I don't want to change the "Slurs can't be trademarked" law. I want to remove it. So NOBODY gets to decide what terms can and can't be trademarked. If someone really wants to trademark a term that is widely found offensive, then the free market can make that trademark useless. If people want to picket the Redskins, boycott the NFL's sponsors or buy the team and change the name, no one would be complaining about that.

I believe "closely held" simply means "not publicly traded", which Hobby Lobby and other involved companies aren't. And you're not going to make much of a case that it does more damage to force someone to buy a $40 pill themselves or find a new job that meets their needs than it does to force a business to meet a mandate made by an unelected official (birth control and certainly abortifacients were NOT part of the law passed by Congress and signed by the President. The term was added by the HHS Secretary.) that they find to be equivalent of murder or else go out of business.

 

[blue4]

I don't want to change the "Slurs can't be trademarked" law. I want to remove it. So NOBODY gets to decide what terms can and can't be trademarked. If someone really wants to trademark a term that is widely found offensive, then the free market can make that trademark useless. If people want to picket the Redskins, boycott the NFL's sponsors or buy the team and change the name, no one would be complaining about that.

I believe "closely held" simply means "not publicly traded", which Hobby Lobby and other involved companies aren't. And you're not going to make much of a case that it does more damage to force someone to buy a $40 pill themselves or find a new job that meets their needs than it does to force a business to meet a mandate made by an unelected official (birth control and certainly abortifacients were NOT part of the law passed by Congress and signed by the President. The term was added by the HHS Secretary.) that they find to be equivalent of murder or else go out of business.

You make good points on the trademark law. I don't know if I necessarily agree, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it being removed. Other than sports teams, I don't really know if that law has been used often.

I have bad feelings about that hobby lobby ruling. I think its going to be one of those rulings that no one will be happy with.

 

[blue4]

I've got to run Boffo, it's been fun. I have a feeling you've not lost many debates on here.

 

[PhxRam]

This thread is pointless.. Locked