Redskins Trademark Cancelation Poll. For It? or Against It?

[lizzzi]

There seems to be an awful lot of discussion here for what seems like a  simple thing to do, especially if Native Americans are asking that the name be changed. So change the name. It's a sports team, not world peace.

[Gin1984]

Where do you fall on the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I think it's a good thing. But it's also the implementation of a meaningful amount of public policy that the other societal institutions hadn't managed to do on their own, and it also meaningfully changed life for nearly everyone or everyone in the country. It's also not pseudo-unconstitutional.

So I guess I don't see the similarity other than that they're both things that the federal government and race were involved with?

Can you elaborate?

[SwordGuy]

There is no constitutional right not to be offended.

There is a constitutional right to be offensive.

I don't think the US Government should be intervening. 

If a business wants to be known by a racist name it should be their right to do so.  I know of no constitutional basis for denying a business such a name.

In fact, if groups that were offended by such names had a lick of sense, they would trademark them out the wazoo and thus keep others from using them.

[Gin1984]

There is no constitutional right not to be offended.

There is a constitutional right to be offensive.

I don't think the US Government should be intervening. 

If a business wants to be known by a racist name it should be their right to do so.  I know of no constitutional basis for denying a business such a name.

In fact, if groups that were offended by such names had a lick of sense, they would trademark them out the wazoo and thus keep others from using them.

Congress has the right to make laws, as long as they themselves are not unconstitutional.  Congress is who set up the whole trademark "idea".  Therefore, there is a constitutional basis for denying a business such a name.

[arebelspy]

If a business wants to be known by a racist name it should be their right to do so.  I know of no constitutional basis for denying a business such a name.

The government isn't denying them that business name.  They do have the right to be known by a racist name.

The government is denying them the ability to stop others from using that name as well - it's increasing the amount of free speech with this ruling, by letting anyone who wants to use the name do so.

The NFL team can continue to operate under that name, no one is stopping them.

[Insanity]

If a business wants to be known by a racist name it should be their right to do so.  I know of no constitutional basis for denying a business such a name.

The government isn't denying them that business name.  They do have the right to be known by a racist name.

The government is denying them the ability to stop others from using that name as well - it's increasing the amount of free speech with this ruling, by letting anyone who wants to use the name do so.

The NFL team can continue to operate under that name, no one is stopping them.

I think it is a bit more complicated with the NFL being the entity the Skins ultimately are part of.  I'm not a lawyer so I am not going to begin to get into that discussion (really should reach out to my brother who is a trademark attorney). 

But, you are right - they can still call themselves the Redskins and so can lots of other people now.

[davisgang90]

The USPTO seems to have an interesting set of criteria for what is offensive.

Surely the Cleveland Indians' mascot has to go. Chief Wahoo is a goofy cartoon depiction of a Native American, whereas the Redskins logo shows a dignified and stoic warrior.

And how about the "Fighting Irish"? Doesn't that feed into the disparaging image of drunken Irishmen? Or the "Buccaneers" and the "Raiders," which seem to be derogatory terms for pirates? How many "Vikings" mascots wear a farcical, and historically inaccurate, horned helmet?

For that matter, what about names such as "Dago Swagg" or "Mammy Jamia's"? Both are registered trademarks that employ what could be construed as derogatory names.

And surely Apple should be worried, given that some devout Christians think the company's logo (an apple with a bite taken out of it) celebrates Adam and Eve biting into the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. In fact, some Russian Orthodox pushed to ban the logo in that country on those very grounds.

And since the law specifically forbids "immoral" or "scandalous" matter, how is it that the USPTO saw fit to make "Boobies Make Me Smile" a registered trademark? Or "PornHub"? There must be plenty of people who find those deeply offensive.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/061914-705485-patent-office-redskins-ruling-is-a-slippery-slope.htm

[GuitarStv]

Good lord. I am far from PC.

But if there were a team called the Akron Kikes I would be apoplectic.

If native Americans are offended by the term Redskins, isn't that enough?

This is embarrassing to the NFL.

The time to move on was long ago.

Agreed. We'd never tolerate the Blackskins or the Yellowskins, would we? I hope not.

I'd fully support a change to 'Pinkskins' with the logo becoming a white dude with a mullet and faded jean jacket.  :P

[lizzzi]

Hey, GuitarStv, did you get 'Pinkskins' from Star Trek Enterprise? That is what the Andorian commander Shran called most humans.

[GuitarStv]

Not consciously, but I do seem to remember watching a lot of that show many years ago . . .

[FIPurpose]

Hey, GuitarStv, did you get 'Pinkskins' from Star Trek Enterprise? That is what the Andorian commander Shran called most humans.

Brilliant! Rename to Blueskins: Mascot is an Andorian.

[lizzzi]

Yes, yes. I must have a blue mascot with antennae!!!

[GuitarStv]

Yes, yes. I must have a blue mascot with antennae!!!

  ?

[arebelspy]

You swore you wouldn't post those photos, GuitarStv.

[lizzzi]