Washington who?

[RamzFanz]

But they do have Constitutional authority...under the Commerce Clause. And the First Amendment does not bar it.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you want to register a word or phrase as a trademark and receive the protection/benefits that flows from that, you have to avail yourself to the parameters of the law.

Sure, if Fox News's trademark violates the law, they can drop it. I'm not saying it's based on their own preferences. I'm saying it's based on the law (a federal statute).

And the law is written by them so if they pass a law that they can drop your trade mark for any reason they choose, they can, according to you.

Trademarks are speech. Words are speech. Images are speech. Granting special status to prefered words and refusing them for others based on personal interpretations of a vague law is censorship.

The Federal Government has stated purposes and selecting speech for protected statuses isn't one of them.

 

[MrMotes]

A trademark is speech. The Federal Government is directly restricted from abridging it.

I don't understand your argument. Aren't trademarks themselves government sanctioned restrictions on free speech? I can't use certain words in certain situations because private companies have trademarked them and the government enforces the trademarks. Isn't that the government infringing on free speech?

 

[rdlkgliders]

161 posts on our humble little forum, color this topic relevant. As a Grandfather of 3 children registered with a tribe and a Grandmother born on a reservation. There are special circumstances and that is why the grand kids are registered (Neither me or any of my sibling are registered and neither are our children, my grandmother was not in support of U.S money for the wrongs that were cast upon her people.) I do not identify myself as a Native American, Irishman, German or any of my What is I am sure many bloodlines (I look like a generic white boy) so I will leave the debate to you in the know. I have never been offended by the label in question, Cracker, Wood or any other term used to describe me. I think of it as the problem of the accuser and weak to let such pettiness define me. So the term(s) don't bother me. Some of the responses as to why we should not consider these matters relevant or in need of addressing is far more offensive. If you can't empathise you may want to consider reassessing. Love to all my rod brothers. Be considerate.

 

[RamzFanz]

I don't understand your argument. Aren't trademarks themselves government sanctioned restrictions on free speech? I can't use certain words in certain situations because private companies have trademarked them and the government enforces the trademarks. Isn't that the government infringing on free speech?

Interesting point. As are Jrry's.

I don't see people claiming intellectual property as censorship. I don't see the Feds protecting our right to our property as a problem.

 

[Rmfnlt]

So you'll have to excuse me if I don't care whether or not it defeats racism.
Ummmm... OK, I thought that was the whole purpose of bringing it down (a move I support wholeheartedly BTW). I still firmly believe that, in 9 months, the racism needle ion SC will not have moved much at all. Not happy about that, but if you think taking down that flag is going to have a marked effect on racism, I think you're dreaming.

I walked past that flag numerous times with black friends that grew up and still live in South Carolina. And I can't tell you how many times they talked about how much the flag disgusted them and how badly they wanted to see it taken down. Every time we walked by it, one of my friends would flip the flag the bird.
With such a scientific study, I guess I'll have to conceded the debate.

So, if you happened to hang with a group of friends who believed the flag was a legitimate symbol of the state (and WERE NOT RACISTS - yes, that can happen), then what?

 

[beej]

I just had a chuckle as I remembered, that on the STL today forum, someone found my screen name offensive and tried to make me change it. I guess it meant something other to them than what my mother meant it to.

 

[jrry32]

Ummmm... OK, I thought that was the whole purpose of bringing it down (a move I support wholeheartedly BTW). I still firmly believe that, in 9 months, the racism needle ion SC will not have moved much at all. Not happy about that, but if you think taking down that flag is going to have a marked effect on racism, I think you're dreaming.

No, you're not going to defeat racism by removing a flag. It's a simply a small step in the process.

But you're not even attempting to defend keeping it up. So I don't think I really have to even make an argument. You're simply arguing that it won't make a huge difference. Last I checked, the flag should have been removed because it was the "right" thing to do. Not because it will end racism.

With such a scientific study, I guess I'll have to conceded the debate.

So, if you happened to hang with a group of friends who believed the flag was a legitimate symbol of the state (and WERE NOT RACISTS - yes, that can happen), then what?

Might as well. You're not even making it a debate. I can't recall you making one argument in support of keeping the flag.

I did hang out with people who thought that (well, not that it was a symbol of the state...but that it was a symbol of Southern pride). And miraculously, when they started to associate with a more diverse group of people, their views changed...a lot.

But even then, I can't recall any of my Southern white friends considering the Confederate flag to be a legitimate symbol of South Carolina. At best, they considered it a symbol of Southern heritage. The symbol of South Carolina is the palmetto tree.

 

[jrry32]

And the law is written by them so if they pass a law that they can drop your trade mark for any reason they choose, they can, according to you.

Not really. Ignoring the practical realities that make the law impossible. There is a check on the legislative power. Which means that law would have to be accepted by the courts. Doesn't seem likely.

Trademarks are speech. Words are speech. Images are speech. Granting special status to prefered words and refusing them for others based on personal interpretations of a vague law is censorship.

Censorship isn't illegal. Ask the FCC.

And the problem you're discussing is the refusal to grant special status to certain words. That's an omission. The government isn't actively suppressing that speech. They just aren't granting special protections for it. You can still use the word. You can say the word. You just can't claim it as your own and profit off of it.

The Federal Government has stated purposes and selecting speech for protected statuses isn't one of them.

Both the federal government and SCOTUS would disagree on that one.

 

[Ramhusker]

In the end, it's all about perspective and respect for your fellow human. I grew up in Virginia, in the heart of a lot of our country's early history and in the shadow of the Washington Redskins. It never crossed my mind that the name "redskin" may be somehow racist, even though I was always told that I was 1/16th Cherokee and felt pride in that as a child. Now, I can certainly see how Native Americans could feel offended by it. They certainly have been the most persecuted and most badly treated race on this continent in this country's existence. Of course, Africans and the Irish run a close second without a doubt.

And again, growing up in Virginia, the Confederate flag (actually the battle flag of Northern Virginia is what all the controversy is about at the moment) was prevelant and I never saw it as racist or a symbol of hate. I still don't recognize the flag as such because it really isn't. That flag has unfortunately been bastardized by different hate groups over the years giving the perception the flag stands for racism and hate. So I understand how people that haven't studied history in too great of detail or are not that interested in history can perceive the flag in a negative light. And for that reason, the Northern Virginia battle flag should fly over no government building. Now, if I were Irish, I'd definitely have a problem with the British Union Jack flag. Many Irish slaves were shipped to the new world and treated as bad as any slave in the colonies. I'd imagine most people were never taught this in history class at school. I know I wasn't. In Virginia, we were taught about indentured servitude but never about Irish slavery.

 

[RamzFanz]

Not really. Ignoring the practical realities that make the law impossible. There is a check on the legislative power. Which means that law would have to be accepted by the courts. Doesn't seem likely.



Censorship isn't illegal. Ask the FCC.

And the problem you're discussing is the refusal to grant special status to certain words. That's an omission. The government isn't actively suppressing that speech. They just aren't granting special protections for it. You can still use the word. You can say the word. You just can't claim it as your own and profit off of it.



Both the federal government and SCOTUS would disagree on that one.

Where we disagree is you are under the impression that just because they do it and the courts uphold it, it's constitutional. That's never been the case. Slavery. Separate but equal. Forced purchase of private insurance. The FCC. Improperly ratified Federal income tax. Going to war without a congressional declaration of war. Changing laws through presidential executive order. Eminent domain for private use. The list of their collusions in direct opposition to the constitution goes on and on.

The Federal government doesn't even have the enumerated authority to protect trademarks like it does patents. It was even originally struck down as unconstitutional. They just keep creeping into our rights because we don't stop them.

You're arguing that it's legal because they do it and get away with it, I'm arguing they shouldn't get away with it.

 

[RAMSinLA]

If I were a Redskins fan I would be pissed if they had to change their name. I guess our Rams are okay.... at least until some trans gendered animal rights activist wants to marry one.

 

[MrMotes]

At some point they'll change it because keeping it is bad for business. That's capitalism, right?

 

[jrry32]

Where we disagree is you are under the impression that just because they do it and the courts uphold it, it's constitutional. That's never been the case. Slavery. Separate but equal. Forced purchase of private insurance. The FCC. Improperly ratified Federal income tax. Going to war without a congressional declaration of war. Changing laws through presidential executive order. Eminent domain for private use. The list of their collusions in direct opposition to the constitution goes on and on.

The Federal government doesn't even have the enumerated authority to protect trademarks like it does patents. It was even originally struck down as unconstitutional. They just keep creeping into our rights because we don't stop them.

You're arguing that it's legal because they do it and get away with it, I'm arguing they shouldn't get away with it.

It was struck down originally because they tried to justify it under the Patent and Copyright Clause. Not because they didn't have the power to do it. They have the power under the Commerce Clause.

I'm arguing it's legal because it is. You want to argue that the Commerce Clause has been stretched too far. Have at it. Unfortunately, you're clinging to an antiquated ideal. It happened and it's not going to change. Pandora's box was opened a long time ago.

 

[RamzFanz]

Unfortunately, you're clinging to an antiquated ideal. It happened and it's not going to change. Pandora's box was opened a long time ago.

My point exactly, pandora's box has been cracked open.

Constitutional rights and limitations are not antiquated. They are sacrosanct.

There's a reason we can change the constitution. If we want them to have a power, WE grant it.

There are only two possible outcomes of the government's actions, we allow it and we lose the only power we have to remain free and limit their power, or, eventually, they go too far and we stop them through peaceful means or non-peaceful.

It's the history of every attempt at personal liberty ever. The people rise up and take their rights, the powers start to believe they are above the people, the people chop down the tree. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That's not to be taken literally, because it need not be if we force the respect of the constitution that it demands through the processes provided to us by our constitutional rights, until it must be.

Once we lose the constitution, we lose everything.

 

[MrMotes]

And that's why the federal government should reinstate The Washington Redskins' trademark?

 

[jrry32]

My point exactly, pandora's box has been cracked open.

Constitutional rights and limitations are not antiquated. They are sacrosanct.

There's a reason we can change the constitution. If we want them to have a power, WE grant it.

There are only two possible outcomes of the government's actions, we allow it and we lose the only power we have to remain free and limit their power, or, eventually, they go too far and we stop them through peaceful means or non-peaceful.

It's the history of every attempt at personal liberty ever. The people rise up and take their rights, the powers start to believe they are above the people, the people chop down the tree. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That's not to be taken literally, because it need not be if we force the respect of the constitution that it demands through the processes provided to us by our constitutional rights, until it must be.

Once we lose the constitution, we lose everything.

And as far as the court is concerned, the Constitution has not been violated.

You seem to be arguing many of the Anti-Federalist views. Unfortunately, those views are antiquated. The Commerce Clause was expanded a long time ago. It's not going back to the early interpretations. It's like arguing that we shouldn't have the Federal Reserve. The argument just isn't particularly relevant anymore.

The truth is that we already granted them that power. We granted them that power in the Commerce Clause and then allowed the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. And accepted it. It's now part of this country. Just like the federal central banking system.

We haven't lost the Constitution. It's just not being interpreted in the way you interpret it. Which is fine. You're allowed to have views which differ from the government's. That's the great thing about this country. But the straits just aren't as dire as you're making them out to be.