Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Supreme Court Just Ruled 8-0 that Offensive Names are Protected by Freedom of Speech

SonnyandSam

By SonnyandSam
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

SonnyandSam

SonnyandSam

Posted
Posted

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/19/supreme-court-rules-trademark-law-banning-offensive-names-is-unconstitutional.html

 

The US Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that the Trademark Office cannot deny a trademark because a name is considered offensive. Although this case involved an Asian American Band called the Slants, this will force the Appeals Court hearing the Redskins Trademark case to rule in favor of the Redskins. So anyone who doesn't like the name, go pound sand. Hail to the Redskins! This was a whopping unanimous decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goskins10

goskins10

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RedBeast said:

HAIL!

 

Thank God...hopefully this is over with.

 

I am very happy this decision came down this way but I hardly think this means it's all over with. There are several angles they have been working this. Blocking the Trademark is just one of them.

10 minutes ago, dyst said:

We should call ourselves the "Skins", make it all inclusive. Leave no one out :ols:

 

Honestly I just call them the Skins anyway - out of laziness to say the whole name. Could keep everything the same and just change the name a little. I would actually be Ok with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taylor 36

Taylor 36

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I am very happy this decision came down this way but I hardly think this means it's all over with. There are several angles they have been working this. Blocking the Trademark is just one of them.

 

But, the trademark angle was the best shot they had left.  Now, that is gone.  With that being taken away, there is absolutely nothing they (those that oppose the name) can do at this point more than protest and boycott games/merchandise.  The NFL is a private organization and Snyder owns the team as a private business.  There are no legal/financial ramifications that can be levied against the team by any government agency because of the name.  DC politicians can keep holding their collective breath and stomping their feet, but Snyder can easily (and with less cost) build his new stadium in Virginia or Maryland.  He is not going to bow to pressure from SJW's to change the name, and the idea that as a business man he would lose millions due to the trademark being denied is out the window now.  This SC decision pretty much put the nail in the coffin that the name won't change so long as Snyder owns the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goskins10

goskins10

Posted
Posted
Just now, Taylor 36 said:

But, the trademark angle was the best shot they had left.  Now, that is gone.  With that being taken away, there is absolutely nothing they (those that oppose the name) can do at this point more than protest and boycott games/merchandise.  The NFL is a private organization and Snyder owns the team as a private business.  There are no legal/financial ramifications that can be levied against the team by any government agency because of the name.  DC politicians can keep holding their collective breath and stomping their feet, but Snyder can easily (and with less cost) build his new stadium in Virginia or Maryland.  He is not going to bow to pressure from SJW's to change the name, and the idea that as a business man he would lose millions due to the trademark being denied is out the window now.  This SC decision pretty much put the nail in the coffin that the name won't change so long as Snyder owns the team.

 

That was their best chance now. But now they move to the next best option. I mean do you really think just because they lost this decision that will stop the whining and protesting? That they will no pursue other legal directions?

 

Look, I am in total agreement that the whole thing is a bunch of ****. But that has not stopped people before. To think this will just suddenly go away is just not supported by history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voice_of_Reason

Voice_of_Reason

Posted
Posted

So, first of all, I literally had to read the beginning of the opinion to figure out why it was 8-0, and not 9-0.  Gorsuch did not participate in the deliberation of, or the decision in this case.  For whatever that matters. Which it probably doesn't. 

 

Second of all, I really love how all of the coverage has sortof a passing note about the actual case, and a picture of some Redskin helmet or player (I think FoxNews has a picture of a QB wearing #12.  So, Colt McCoy (I can't really tell who it is, and honestly, if Colt came up to me in a bar and offered to buy me a drink, I don't think I would recognize him), might have a picture on a lead FoxNews story.   

 

Third, it's irritating that the media has essentially just copped to the fact that the term Redskins IS in fact insulting. Which I am not sure that it really is.  

 

Fourth, in general, this falls in line with "I don't have to like what you're saying even though I will protect your right to say it."  

 

EDIT: Fifth, reading the opinion, even just the first few pages/paragraphs, confirmed to me why I never went to law school and could never be a lawyer.  God that was hard to get through...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taylor 36

Taylor 36

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, goskins10 said:

 

That was their best chance now. But now they move to the next best option. I mean do you really think just because they lost this decision that will stop the whining and protesting? That they will no pursue other legal directions?

 

Look, I am in total agreement that the whole thing is a bunch of ****. But that has not stopped people before. To think this will just suddenly go away is just not supported by history.

No, I don't think this decision will stop them.  Like I said in my post you quoted, all they really have left is protesting and boycotting, which many of the anti-name crowd have been doing for years. The protesting hasn't done anything to help their cause as far as getting Snyder and the league to be persuaded, and I don't see that changing.  They'll keep protesting, but, legally, they don't have any avenues to truly pursue left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goskins10

goskins10

Posted
Posted
Just now, Taylor 36 said:

No, I don't think this decision will stop them.  Like I said in my post you quoted, all they really have left is protesting and boycotting, which many of the anti-name crowd have been doing for years. The protesting hasn't done anything to help their cause as far as getting Snyder and the league to be persuaded, and I don't see that changing.  They'll keep protesting, but, legally, they don't have any avenues to truly pursue left.

 

So we are in total agreement. lol 

 

Honestly not sure I was understanding your point. I did not say they had more legal grounds to pursue - although I would not be surprised if they didn't find something to try - I was just saying it's not "all over" just because this decision.

 

Where are we disagreeing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taylor 36

Taylor 36

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, goskins10 said:

 

So we are in total agreement. lol 

 

Honestly not sure I was understanding your point. I did not say they had more legal grounds to pursue - although I would not be surprised if they didn't find something to try - I was just saying it's not "all over" just because this decision.

 

Where are we disagreeing?

Haha!  We do agree!  I'm sure they will TRY to find more legal grounds to use for a name change, but they would have to get really creative and hope for some really new age type judges to get it to stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

I like that there is no argument about "if" the name is offensive,  just that we can use it anyway. :ols:

Yup. As far as revoking a trademark goes it doesn't really matter (in this particular case) if it is offensive, only whether they can revoke it *if* it is offensive. They can't, so it doesn't matter.

 

People will still say it's offensive and boycott, and that's fine do what you want.

 

It's when they start telling everyone else what to do (or start using the government to push their agenda) that it starts pissing other people off.

 

If you believe the name, as used, isn't offensive... you're never going to win that argument with those that do think it's offensive. That ship has sailed, their opinions are formed, they have no interest in considering whether it is offensive or not; they are decided.

 

So, if you're for keeping the name, it's just about protecting the ability to keep/use the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

But, the trademark angle was the best shot they had left.  Now, that is gone.

 

I might be wrong but I believe that's not quite true. They didn't say you can't ever do it, they said the way they were trying to do it was unconstitutional.

 

IE: They'd have to make a new rule, then implement it, then deal with the appeals process.

Then go to court and deal with all the appeals there.

Then wind up in front of scotus again and argue the case (Because we know the redskins will take it that far.)

 

IE: It would take a long time and a lot of money to argue it all over again, and hoping that this time they got it right.

 

So it's not gone, it's all but. It took them what? 20 years to get back through the courts since the last time? It'll probably be a while before anyone at the FTC decides to go down this rabbit hole again (if ever), and the process is long.

 

And even if they do win on the ability to revoke offensive trademarks, you still have the question of *IF* the redskins name is indeed offensive (remember the latest poll... i'm sure by then it too will be "out dated" :ols:)

 

So... yeah... it's probably gone, but I don't think it's technically gone...

 

They can always keep on organizing those protests. They were a hit :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...