Over My Dead Body

[Sum1]

The U.S. Patent office (or U.S. Government) is violating the rights of a business to name it's team what it wants, and to further protect that name.

The only kind of speech that needs to be protected is the offensive kind.

Well, no they aren't. According to their reasoning they are complying completely with the law. Another court may interpret that law differently and overturn the ruling. That is the legal process, and in the mean time they are able to operate with the trademark protection.

Therefore, nothing is being violated and is simply going through the process to determine if the Redskins name is in fact offensive and unworthy of trademark protection because of that.

I really don't understand the uproar about the government involvement...if you ask me they are simply doing their job about an issue that was BROUGHT to them.

 

[Thordaddy]

Well, no they aren't. According to their reasoning they are complying completely with the law. Another court may interpret that law differently and overturn the ruling. That is the legal process, and in the mean time they are able to operate with the trademark protection.

Therefore, nothing is being violated and is simply going through the process to determine if the Redskins name is in fact offensive and unworthy of trademark protection because of that.

I really don't understand the uproar about the government involvement...if you ask me they are simply doing their job about an issue that was BROUGHT to them.

Well first of all offensive to who? those who are entitled top be offended by what criteria and whether the contingency claiming offense constitutes the majority of those with that entitlement.
The Patent Office laws need to be amended to remove the ability to make that sort of determination ( that's exactly where the government over reach occurs that you choose not to see) the original LAW made possible through the Interstate Commerce clause clearly is using it's mandate to curtail free speech a right so imperative it was not only recognized as protected by it's VERY OWN amendment , but in the hierarchy of urgency of accomplishment they decided FIRST THINGS FIRST.

At the least we have a constitutional conflict here and IMO the power to do such a thing needs to be litigated before the Supreme Court, we DO have laws ruled unconstitutional all the time ya know.

 

[Sum1]

Well first of all offensive to who? those who are entitled top be offended by what criteria and whether the contingency claiming offense constitutes the majority of those with that entitlement.
The Patent Office laws need to be amended to remove the ability to make that sort of determination ( that's exactly where the government over reach occurs that you choose not to see) the original LAW made possible through the Interstate Commerce clause clearly is using it's mandate to curtail free speech a right so imperative it was not only recognized as protected by it's VERY OWN amendment , but in the hierarchy of urgency of accomplishment they decided FIRST THINGS FIRST.

At the least we have a constitutional conflict here and IMO the power to do such a thing needs to be litigated before the Supreme Court, we DO have laws ruled unconstitutional all the time ya know.

Freedom of speech does have its limits, believe it or not.

Here is a pretty good explanation...
http://www.freedomforum.org/package...edom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

I think the argument being presented that by revoking trademark protection is a lack of freedom of speech is a stretch anyway. These basic freedoms are meant for the citizens of the United States, not for corporations to capitalize on.

And again, there seems to be this belief with a few on here that the people that find this term offensive aren't real or have no basis. I won't try to convince you, but I think it is rather short-sighted to truly dismiss this and believe it is simply some PC police getting everyone riled up. There are Native American organizations with Native American leaders making themselves very visible and available to discuss their discontent with the name. IMO their biggest flaw is that they aren't (at least visibly) taking action toward lesser known organizations carrying similar names (such as schools and minor league teams).

On the other side...it does bother me when you hear people make the claim that the term Redskins is no different than the word black. I do think it is quite a bit different. IMO, a more accurate description would be the term Colored People. I'd think something like being called Savages would be closer to the N word.

I recently asked one of my employees who is 100% Native American his thoughts on this. He said that he doesn't personally take offense to the term Redskin, but he said it is a derogatory term and thinks it is inappropriate and understands and supports his tribes stance against it.

 

[Thordaddy]

And FWIW this falls under none of the categories.

I THINK the proposition that the word is offensive to a sufficient number of Native Americans is a bigger "stretch".

The "leaders " you sight have bigger problems to help their constituency with than this but it's a PC darling and they enhance their standing politically from exploiting it.

 

[Sum1]

And FWIW this falls under none of the categories.

I THINK the proposition that the word is offensive to a sufficient number of Native Americans is a bigger "stretch".

The "leaders " you sight have bigger problems to help their constituency with than this but it's a PC darling and they enhance their standing politically from exploiting it.

Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

You're using your opinion of what you think is worth battling in regard to those peoples interest when you suggest that about the leaders of that group. Which is fine, that is your opinion...but it doesn't really work as an argument that the term isn't derogatory or offensive to the group.

Anyway...agree to disagree. I personally take no issue with the name, but the people against the name, IMO, are bringing up valid reasoning with their dispute and I feel some of the arguments being made are very much being stretched to fit a predetermined opinion rather than looking at this topic open-mindedly and from both sides. And I state this with all due respect. :cheers:

 

[Boffo97]

IMO, the real argument is whether the law saying there can't be a trademark on a disparaging name SHOULD be a law. And I think that law is the government overstepping themselves.

There are free market pressures that can be brought against the Redskins. And if Snyder was forced to change the name because of them, I don't think anyone would be complaining. The government (or any agency thereof) making those kinds of decisions is not what this country is supposed to be about.

I would be pissed beyond belief if the Rams were forced to change their name... and as long as a law like that is in place, it's not as unlikely as one might think at first glance.

 

[beej]

They could call themselves the Washington Rednecks and use a caricature of me. I'd be honored. But that's only because ignorance is bliss.

 

[The Rammer]

Gentlemen...Get ready for the Washington Bravehearts!

That's not to racially bad.... has to be more contraversal

 

[Thordaddy]

Snyder said over his dead body , I took him at his word, at least I hope I can,this is monumental bullying that offends me

 

[bluecoconuts]

IMO, the real argument is whether the law saying there can't be a trademark on a disparaging name SHOULD be a law. And I think that law is the government overstepping themselves.

There are free market pressures that can be brought against the Redskins. And if Snyder was forced to change the name because of them, I don't think anyone would be complaining. The government (or any agency thereof) making those kinds of decisions is not what this country is supposed to be about.

I would be pissed beyond belief if the Rams were forced to change their name... and as long as a law like that is in place, it's not as unlikely as one might think at first glance.

I think there should be, there needs to be some rules and regulations on these things. There's enough people out there who could keep a racist product on the market, which then causes far more issues than its worth. When you alienate groups like that, even a private company, it sends a message to everyone else that they could be alienated next, which isn't a message you want generating with the masses.

 

[Boffo97]

I think there should be, there needs to be some rules and regulations on these things. There's enough people out there who could keep a racist product on the market, which then causes far more issues than its worth. When you alienate groups like that, even a private company, it sends a message to everyone else that they could be alienated next, which isn't a message you want generating with the masses.

Had the NFL made such rules and regulations, again, I don't think anyone would be complaining. But the government has NO PLACE doing so. That's the very definition of Nanny State. "Oh, please, Mr. Government! I'm offended! Make the bad people stop offending me!"

Besides, as will be argued over the coming years (and as was previously argued successfully), Native Americans are a very diverse population and far from unanimous on whether or not they consider the term racist. As mentioned before, high schools with 97%+ Native American populations and Native American administrators call their sports teams the Redskins. Also, a 2004 poll among Native Americans showed only NINE PERCENT of respondents saying the name was offensive:

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycen...acceptable-while-9-percent-call-it-offensive/

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't think you have to take offense to something to be able to see how it is an offensive term. I don't get offended by any racial terms, it doesn't mean that I'm unable to comprehend how they can be seen as racist or offensive. If there's enough people to make noise, and it would seem there is, then this is what's going to happen. Historically it has been on the government to take the lead in race related situations, as the private groups/states were unwilling to do so. It doesn't surprise me that they're looking about doing it again.

2004 was also a long time ago, things change quickly.


To set the record straight, again I don't care about the name. Frankly I don't really see why anyone but Redskins fans would.

 

[Ramhusker]

I'm in Redskins territory this week and the fans are pissed. I walked into a hardware store with my "Rams, just do it" t-shirt on and got comments that the shirt offended them. Of course, it didn't but they used it to strike up a conversation to vent. They are not happy.

 

[Boffo97]

I don't think you have to take offense to something to be able to see how it is an offensive term. I don't get offended by any racial terms, it doesn't mean that I'm unable to comprehend how they can be seen as racist or offensive. If there's enough people to make noise, and it would seem there is, then this is what's going to happen. Historically it has been on the government to take the lead in race related situations, as the private groups/states were unwilling to do so. It doesn't surprise me that they're looking about doing it again.

2004 was also a long time ago, things change quickly.


To set the record straight, again I don't care about the name. Frankly I don't really see why anyone but Redskins fans would.

I don't care about the name so much as I care about the government overreaching. This is not a case of people being denied civil rights. This is a case of people being offended by a name (mostly a third party offended on behalf of the supposed insulted party) that they could easily ignore, and that is NOT universally offensive. The government has far bigger problems to be involved in and the law that allowed this panel to vote 2-1 to take away someone's trademarks needs to be changed. Thankfully, it should be shot down in appeal again.

What precisely do you think has changed so much in ten years that has caused 90% of Native Americans to be insulted by the term when they weren't before? Sure, obviously SOME are, but what's the lower threshhold for number of people insulted for this to be done? Can PETA round up X number of people to say they're offended by animals being exploited and get the government to take away trademarks from the Rams and other animal-themed teams?

The government taking away ANYTHING without a compelling cause should be a very scary notion.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm not sure what changed, but I know approval for gay marriage and other things like that have also gone up quite a bit.

I wouldn't say they don't have a compelling cause though. The law says the patent office had to take it away.

 

[Boffo97]

I'm not sure what changed, but I know approval for gay marriage and other things like that have also gone up quite a bit.

I wouldn't say they don't have a compelling cause though. The law says the patent office had to take it away.

The government shouldn't be based on whatever people think this week though. It should be based on the Constitution, which can be changed, but only in overwhelming circumstances.

And I know what the law says. I'm saying the law is wrong and needs to be changed. And that said, the interpretation of the law that said the patent office had to take away the trademark is also wrong.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If we limited everything to strictly what the constitution said, and nothing more barring an amendment, we would be decades behind where we are now, and likely wouldn't be nearly as strong as we are. Society changes far quicker than amendments can keep up, so either we'd be putting in a lot of new amendments constantly (which would diminish the power of the constitution) or we'd quickly fall behind.

 

[RamzFanz]

The Redskins were named that by the biggest racist in the NFL.

If the name is changed just for that reason alone, I'm fine with it.

 

[Angry Ram]

Meh. I live in Oklahoma. Indian Nation. Numerous high schools (including my alma mater) use Native American for their teams. Including one school...that uses Redskins. That's also my alma mater.