Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

From the link-

Tam: "There’s been a substantial amount of Native Americans who have expressed deep concerns over their name,..... "

 

-define 'substantial'

 

"..... and unlike "slants" or other words, redskin has always been known as a racial slur,.... "

 

-factually incorrect

 

".... that's what people associate with it."

 

Really? I thought people associated redskins with a football team. Or a potato. 

 

Awesome how stuff gets repeated and goes unchecked until people believe it's fact. 

People honestly don't know how to write about this issue (as if journalism exists anyway).  It is completely subjective. The Patent Office takes an absolute position that if anyone could be offended the trademark is offensive.  Therefore journalists essentially adopt them as the arbiter of offensive display and use them as the sole source.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justices raise doubts over law barring offensive trademarks

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justices-hear-free-speech-clash-over-offensive-trademarks-090948227--politics.html

 

 

[...] Justice Elena Kagan said it seemed like "a classic form of viewpoint discrimination" because the government appeared to favor positive names over those with negative connotations.

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the law wasn't being enforced consistently, noting that the term Heeb was approved in one trademark application, but not in another. The term is considered offensive to Jews.

 

But the justices also seemed concerned that imposing no limits on trademark names would go too far.

 

"You want us to say that trademark law is just like a public park" where people can say whatever they want, Justice Anthony Kennedy told John Connell, lawyer for Slants founder Simon Tam.

 

A victory for the Oregon-based band would be welcome news for the Washington Redskins, embroiled in their own legal fight over the team name. The trademark office canceled the football team's lucrative trademarks in 2014 after finding the word Redskins is disparaging to Native Americans.

 

At issue is a law that prohibits registration of marks that "may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols."

 

...Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart told the justices that the law does not restrict speech because the band is still free to use the name even without trademark protection.

 

Stewart said the government was concerned about allowing trademarks for racial slurs, religious insults and other crude names that distract consumers and hinder commerce.

 

When Ginsburg asked if the phrase "Slants are superior" would pass muster, Stewart said it probably would.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts wondered why that wouldn't be considered "disparaging of everyone else."

 

"I'm concerned that your government program argument is circular," Roberts said.

 

...Justice Stephen Breyer said the Slants are free to use the name in all kinds of ways, just not on the trademark itself.

"This is not a general expression program," Breyer said. "It stops nobody from saying anything."

Edited by Califan007
Link to post
Share on other sites

" And it doesn’t end with their particular team. I don’t think people should be used as mascots, especially people denigrated and marginalized by the government for centuries."

 

List of ethnic mascots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_sports_team_and_mascot_names

 

It doesn't include 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots, Raiders, Packers, Buccaneers, Saints, Chiefs, Braves, Mets, Brewers, Pirates, Padres, Rangers (both Texas and NY), Athletics, Mariners, Twins, Royals, Indians, Blue Jackets, Senators, Blackhawks, Kings, Cavaliers, Mavericks, Warriors, Trailblazers...

List of commercial products based off Native Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_and_product_names_derived_from_indigenous_peoples

 

Seems like the law is, in fact, applied hypocritically...especially by the US Government.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The name isn't in any danger anymore. The Washington Post, who for years pushed the offensive narrative, found the exact same results with their polls as did Annenberg and since then they've pretty much dropped the issue. So if the Redskins case went to SCOTUS all they have to do is point to the results of both polls and ask how something could be considered disparaging when 90% of the affected population has no issue with it. Then also point to various Native American schools that sue the name too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

SCOTUS just ruled 8-0 in favor of The Slants and tossed the disparagement clause.

 

A major victory for the team/pro-name side.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf

 

Quote

JUSTICE KENNEDY, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, agreed that 15 U. S. C. §1052(a) constitutes viewpoint discrimination, concluding: (a) With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828–829. The test for viewpoint discrimination is whether—within the relevant subject category—the government has singled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed. Here, the disparagement clause identifies the relevant subject as “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,” §1052(a); and within that category, an applicant may register a positive or benign mark but not a derogatory one. The law thus reflects the Government’s disapproval of a subset of messages it finds offensive, the essence of viewpoint discrimination. The Government’s arguments in defense of the statute are unpersuasive. Pp. 2–5. (b) Regardless of whether trademarks are commercial speech, the viewpoint based discrimination here necessarily invokes heightened scrutiny. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U. S. 552, 566. To the extent trademarks qualify as commercial speech, they are an example of why that category does not serve as a blanket exemption from the First Amendment’s requirement of viewpoint neutrality. In the realm of trademarks, the metaphorical marketplace of ideas becomes a tangible, powerful reality. To permit viewpoint discrimination in this context is to permit Government censorship. Pp. 5–7.

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/supreme-court-redskins/index.html?sr=twCNN061917supreme-court-redskins0243PMVODtopLink&linkId=38847892

 

Quote

"The case also has obvious implications for the similar dispute involving the Washington Redskins, who had their trademark canceled under the same statute and theory that the justices invalidated today," said Steve Vladeck, CNN legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of law. "It should now follow that their trademark also should not have been invalidated."

 

Edited by Bliz
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still maintain that this whole name thing was stirred up back when RG3 was here, we were first in the NFC east and he was selling the most jerseys.  

 

Now that we're not champs and don't have a future face of the NFL on our roster, the crying about this issue has largely quieted down.  

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are literally thousands of potentially offensive names, icons, emblems. How do you regulate them all?

3 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I still maintain that this whole name thing was stirred up back when RG3 was here, we were first in the NFC east and he was selling the most jerseys.  

 

Now that we're not champs and don't have a future face of the NFL on our roster, the crying about this issue has largely quieted down.  

 

 

 

I was also big when we won the Super Bowl in 92. I remember protests in Minneapolis, outside the Metrodome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I still maintain that this whole name thing was stirred up back when RG3 was here, we were first in the NFC east and he was selling the most jerseys.  

 

Now that we're not champs and don't have a future face of the NFL on our roster, the crying about this issue has largely quieted down.  

 

 

It bubbles up every few years. You are absolutely right that the RG3 phenomenon of 2012 (carrying over into 2013) stirred it up to a level that we have not seen in a bit. But I recall a big local AM radio station (either WMAL or WTOP) deciding to stop using the name in the 90's for a while. It didn't last very long however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

There are literally thousands of potentially offensive names, icons, emblems. How do you regulate them all?

 

I was also big when we won the Super Bowl in 92. I remember protests in Minneapolis, outside the Metrodome.

 

Where's the outrage over the $20 bill?  Andrew Jackson had his hands all over the Cherokee leaving Georgia (I think) and also the Trail of Tears.  We honor him on US currency, tho.  People directing their ire at the wrong things....

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, scruffylookin said:

It bubbles up every few years. You are absolutely right that the RG3 phenomenon of 2012 (carrying over into 2013) stirred it up to a level that we have not seen in a bit. But I recall a big local AM radio station (either WMAL or WTOP) deciding to stop using the name in the 90's for a while. It didn't last very long however.

 

We'll still get the self-righteous ass-hats like Florio and Wise making it about them an how much they care, but I think, with this ruling it's on its last legs--Especially considering there was no dissenting opinion, it was an 8-0 vote.

 

Of course, we'll continue to hear about that Native American woman he talked to who is so aggrieved by the name from Wise...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

We'll still get the self-righteous ass-hats like Florio and Wise making it about them an how much they care, but I think, with this ruling it's on its last legs--Especially considering there was no dissenting opinion, it was an 8-0 vote.

 

Of course, we'll continue to hear about that Native American woman he talked to who is so aggrieved by the name from Wise...

Yup

 

8-0 is huge. No political sides. Justices on the right and the left agreed. It was clear cut to them.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

We'll still get the self-righteous ass-hats like Florio and Wise making it about them an how much they care, but I think, with this ruling it's on its last legs--Especially considering there was no dissenting opinion, it was an 8-0 vote.

 

I'd assumed those guys would have read the ruling, accepted it with good grace and moved on to other issues more deserving of their time. Was I being optimistic? 

 

:)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I'd assumed those guys would have read the ruling, accepted it with good grace and moved on to other issues more deserving of their time. Was I being optimistic? 

 

:)

Yeah, it's never going away.  In fact, it will probably just get worse.

 

In terms of trademark protection, the USPTO canceling the Redskin trademarks really didn't do much from a trademark protection standpoint.  Federal registration isn't critical for incredibly well known marks, like "The Redskins" for football services.  From a PR standpoint, however, the PC forces saw it as a victory and it placated them for a while.  Now they will rise up and threaten advertisers, stores that sell Redskin jerseys... They live for this.  Most of the people in the anti-Redskin faction have likely never even met an Indian.  They just want to get their way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, theTruthTeller said:

They live for this.  Most of the people in the anti-Redskin faction have likely never even met an Indian.  They just want to get their way.

 

Yep - I was being sarcastic. Your right. Some of the media folks are too invested in this now anyway to back away almost whatever.

 

This ruling though does mean its really reduced the name opposition to PR and pressure though organising demonstrations and boycotts. Their opportunity to challenge the name and trademark in court is very limited and difficult now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I'd assumed those guys would have read the ruling, accepted it with good grace and moved on to other issues more deserving of their time. Was I being optimistic? 

 

:)

 

Did you also purchase a lottery ticket and make several large financial commitments based on the winnings in your fit of optimism? I figured they're probably about the same odds of happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

Did you also purchase a lottery ticket and make several large financial commitments based on the winnings in your fit of optimism? I figured they're probably about the same odds of happening.

 

Yeah - I tend to stay away from spending money based on my hunches. Track record is not good.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Riggo#44 said:

This is really a no-brainer. This is such a slipper-slope towards censorship, it had to be thrown out.

 

Unfortunately, it wasn't a no brainer to the lower courts.  This was a huge win for free speech.  The alternative would have been really bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My position isnt so much about the name itself, it's that I just think using an ethnic group as a team mascot is inherently inappropriate.  

 

The name I have less of a problem with, but the logo and folks dressing up like Native Anericans and stuff like that I could do without. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo changed the title to The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo pinned this topic
  • Jumbo featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...