I am looking forwared to sports teams and bands having scatological names. How much can we debase society in the name of Free Speech
1
I see that all the white people are offended by the Fighting Irish, the Vikings, and the Canucks? Oh, wait--as soon as a team is named after a white racial group, we realize that naming a team after a population group is not racist at all!
5
The trademark case is less important to me than Court's rejection of the NC statute making it a crime for a registered sex offender to use Facebook and other websites. The majority opinion described the internet as "the modern public square." I can't disagree, but what happens in the public square when someone in the crowd uses the space to commit a crime?
As I understand the general legal rule about the First Amendment, it does provide protection for one to yell "Fire" in a crowd and be excused for deliberately causing damage to life and property. Is fake news on the internet a "fire?" Is cyber bullying yelling "fire?" Is the deliberate posting of false stories about a business acceptable? We may have criminal or civil statutes which could conceivably be used to stop the latter two of these examples, but the "fake news?" I think not, so how to we propose to make our new public square responsible? I would like to hear from the Justices on that issue.
As I understand the general legal rule about the First Amendment, it does provide protection for one to yell "Fire" in a crowd and be excused for deliberately causing damage to life and property. Is fake news on the internet a "fire?" Is cyber bullying yelling "fire?" Is the deliberate posting of false stories about a business acceptable? We may have criminal or civil statutes which could conceivably be used to stop the latter two of these examples, but the "fake news?" I think not, so how to we propose to make our new public square responsible? I would like to hear from the Justices on that issue.
I'm not sure what I think about this SC decision, but The Slants has to be among the best band names ever. Well played, guys.
3
Much ado about nothing if your subscribe to the addage of my youth - 'Sticks and Stones"..can we now move on to the true threats to our way of life - the (hidden) collapsing economy and rampant crime??
Hail to the Redskins!
Hail Victory!
Braves on the Warpath!
Fight for old D.C.!
Run or pass and score—We want a lot more!
Beat 'em, Swamp 'em,
Touchdown! -- Let the points soar!
Fight on, fight on 'Til you have won
Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!
Hail to the Redskins!
Hail Victory!
Braves on the Warpath!
Fight for old D.C.!
Hail Victory!
Braves on the Warpath!
Fight for old D.C.!
Run or pass and score—We want a lot more!
Beat 'em, Swamp 'em,
Touchdown! -- Let the points soar!
Fight on, fight on 'Til you have won
Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!
Hail to the Redskins!
Hail Victory!
Braves on the Warpath!
Fight for old D.C.!
A big time nothing issue,if you don't like the names of teams don't support them.
5
I just wonder if the decision by the Supreme Court would be the same if they were deciding weather the Dallas Cowboys could change the star of their iconic logo to the shape of that of a hexagram.
1
I know it's too late now, but wish that St John's could go back to being called the "REDMEN". Being politically correct for the wrong reasons. Talk is cheap. In reality, the US has not lived up to treaties or Indian Sovereignties in many cases. It is called genocide, plain and simple. My sincere apologies to indigenous people everywhere.
6
I am catholic and find that the name Saints disparages my religion. But I am a "privileged" white male, so I cannot be offended or suffer discrimination.
6
No, you cannot be offended and it is good of you to learn your place in our culture. Thank you!
2
"..protect the freedom to express the thought we hate..." as long as the thought isn't abortion. Then, oops, no more freedom.
Regulations like these are an attempt of political correctors to impose their values upon everyone else. In fact, the great majority of Native Americans are not offended by the term "Redskins" or don't care enough about the "issue". Years ago the Banana Republic division of The Gap tried to register their name and mark with the federal government. They were told that the name was offensive to Latin American countries, or so said the politically correct administrator. When the brand took off, many Central and South American retail stores stole the name - so much for offending Latin Americans!
3
I'd like some clearer analysis on why Breyer preferred Alito's opinion rather than Kennedy's option. Alito's arguments are consistent with with a right-winger who wishes to preserve the right to hate, and it isn't a surprise that Roberts and Thomas would sign on. This leaves me a bit confused about Breyer, however.
It's about time. There are a very few, and very specific, carve outs that are exceptions to absolute free speech.
Slander and libel, which are countered if what was said is true or if it is expressed as an opinion. And even there public figures are less protected than the average person. It has to be intentional lying with malice.
The other carve outs are speech intended to incite *immediate* physical violence or a credible direct threat to a specific person.
Over the existence of our country, outside of wartime, the Court has consistently blocked attempts to stifle speech, no matter how "bad" the hearers think it is. Free speech means nothing if it doesn't protect speech the hearer objects to.
Slander and libel, which are countered if what was said is true or if it is expressed as an opinion. And even there public figures are less protected than the average person. It has to be intentional lying with malice.
The other carve outs are speech intended to incite *immediate* physical violence or a credible direct threat to a specific person.
Over the existence of our country, outside of wartime, the Court has consistently blocked attempts to stifle speech, no matter how "bad" the hearers think it is. Free speech means nothing if it doesn't protect speech the hearer objects to.
3
Although I agree with the Court's ultimate conclusion, this is not truly a "free speech" case. In fact, the rights granted by a trademark to a single user to the exclusion of others, actually inhibits the "speech" of those others. Trademark laws, like defamation laws, are per se restrictions on free speech. We tolerate these restrictions for reasons (often commercial or economic) that have nothing to do with speech itself.
Finally, the common or everyday use of a particular term is irrelevant to this analysis. For example, many people, including politicians, use the term "people of color" to refer to minorities. Yet the term "colored people" can be deemed a slur.
Finally, the common or everyday use of a particular term is irrelevant to this analysis. For example, many people, including politicians, use the term "people of color" to refer to minorities. Yet the term "colored people" can be deemed a slur.
1
Happy we can put this faux issue to rest. If someone says something so offensive let the court of public opinion decide not trial lawyers and courts.
8
I've talked to members of the Spokane Tribe. They like their mascot name. It's Redskins. But crazy liberals say they know better then the common man and they will FORCE the Spokane Indian Tribe to relinquish their mascot name because they know what is good for them. CRAZY LIBERALS ALWAYS THINK THEY ARE GOOD. that's what makes them so dangerous!
4
We need the Supreme Court to tell us that nobody has the right not to be offended!?!
2
The Washington Redskins are a football team. Journalists are trying to inform us on a variety of issues but when something like rock band or a sports team name is in front of the Supreme Court ? We have bigger issues that personally affect all races. Mainly the Healthcare debate and how to provide all citizens with quality care not just a few who can afford it.
6
Finally, unanimous common sense from the SCt.
6
St Johns need to become the Redmen once again.
1
I've never understood why Americans voluntarily hobble their society with blind, utterly absolute devotion to the notion of unfettered free speech. We all know that society is better served by NOT mocking and insulting marginalized groups, so why do we so strongly embrace something that actively weakens our society. I believe Americans greatest flaw is the absolutism they apply to any issue of free speech- i.e if we want to rationally discuss the pros and cons of economic policy, we must also allow trolls to insult disabled people, as if that is "the price" of freedom. Look to Germany to see an example of a society that explicitly prohibits free speech that is not useful to society, and yet still maintains its democracy.
6
Yes, If we were talking about an offensive term, but we are not.
https://www.google.com/amp/washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-n...
https://www.google.com/amp/washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-n...
The justices made the right decision, but it has no impact on what other people call political correctness. Political correctness, within a 'polite' society has always existed except now that some white losers are no longer the majority opinion they want to pretend it is new and threatening, whereas it's only new and threatening to them. Everyone is free to say what they want, and free to react to what others say. But freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. The government can't, and rightly shouldn't, limit speech, which in this case, is trademarks. That doesn't mean private individuals or companies must take the same position. People have the right to respond, to shun, or to refuse to give a platform to disparaging speech as well-- in the name of free speech.
3
This is an excellent decision. USPTO is a trade organization (albeit one that enjoys a government mandate to regulate a certain type of commercial speech). That mandate does not allow it to violate the 1st Amendment in ways that are prohibited to the US Government.
A comparable situation would be if a privatized prison claimed that it had the power to engage in cruel and unusual punishment not permitted in a government-run prison.
A comparable situation would be if a privatized prison claimed that it had the power to engage in cruel and unusual punishment not permitted in a government-run prison.
1
The issue is not the hateful names used by bigots to describe Native Americans, African Americans, Jews, gays and lesbians, or any other minority group.
The issue is the systematic continuing abuse of such groups by their oppressors, and the centuries of legalised genocide, enslavement, antisemitism, and homophobia.
By focussing on sentimental but relatively unimportant things that make us feel good about ourselves, by pretending that we are more tolerant than we really are, by maintaining a false veneer of courtesy and respect, it is that much easier for us to kid ourselves that we are now all one happy, loving family, that all the evil we have done to each other is in the past, forgotten and forgiven, no longer relevant.
We don't need to call each other by nice names. Niceness, despite what our mothers may have taught us, is a useless poultice that merely covers and obscures the deep wound, that heals nothing.
Instead of nice names that cost nothing, we need justice. We need to make reparations to our victims for our centuries of wrongdoing.
The issue is the systematic continuing abuse of such groups by their oppressors, and the centuries of legalised genocide, enslavement, antisemitism, and homophobia.
By focussing on sentimental but relatively unimportant things that make us feel good about ourselves, by pretending that we are more tolerant than we really are, by maintaining a false veneer of courtesy and respect, it is that much easier for us to kid ourselves that we are now all one happy, loving family, that all the evil we have done to each other is in the past, forgotten and forgiven, no longer relevant.
We don't need to call each other by nice names. Niceness, despite what our mothers may have taught us, is a useless poultice that merely covers and obscures the deep wound, that heals nothing.
Instead of nice names that cost nothing, we need justice. We need to make reparations to our victims for our centuries of wrongdoing.
1
So should cowboys be offended by the Dallas Cowboys?
And what about the Texans? Should Texans form a lawsuit against anyone not from Texas on their team?
Should raiders be offended by the Oakland Raiders?
And what about those Giants targeted by Eli the New York Giants?
And the Seahawks?
What about the Vikings?
The Ravens?
The Patriots?
The Dolphins???
And what about the Texans? Should Texans form a lawsuit against anyone not from Texas on their team?
Should raiders be offended by the Oakland Raiders?
And what about those Giants targeted by Eli the New York Giants?
And the Seahawks?
What about the Vikings?
The Ravens?
The Patriots?
The Dolphins???
2
I have always found it interesting that the color-scheme approximations of race are perceived differently. Nobody is bothered by whites being called whites, even though they are not really white in color. Blacks also have easily tolerated the color label as non-offensive. Many Latinos call themselves brown. But red skin and yellow skin, also equally incorrect as a true color approximation, are deemed offensive. I propose that everyone realize that all the racial colors do not accurately describe the true hue of the skin, but serve as easy, equivalent, non-biased and non-offensive nicknames of racial groups.
9
The. second decision is the more interesting one and the
justice's comment about the internet being the modern equivalent of the public square. So how does that square with net neutrality and access for all?
Do tell please, FCC.
justice's comment about the internet being the modern equivalent of the public square. So how does that square with net neutrality and access for all?
Do tell please, FCC.
12
Very interesting that the "Redskins" organization can see this as a victory because the USPTO will not be able to deny trademarks that "disparage people, living or dead." It seems to me that that is admitting that their Redskins mark is disparaging. Maybe someone could explain to me the reasons why a company would want what now we, and they, agree is a disparaging trademark. I'm ok with the outcome - ok if the Slants want to call themselves the Slants. They are not disparaging themselves. They are proud. But the Redskins clearly insult Native Americans and seem happy that they can do that. I'm happy that the US won't apply that disparaging language to trademarks, but am more than troubled by the fact that the Redskins are happy with that name.
10
The Redskins aren't admitting anything. The PTO has already acted to revoke registration of the Redskins mark and the team wants that action reversed. The "Slants" decision should achieve that objective.
4
The 'disparage' part was not the opinion held by the defendants in this case. That's why the matter was being litigated.
1
The Redskins admit no such thing. And, in fact, 90% of Indians do not find the name disparaging. Some liberals find the name disparaging.
https://www.google.com/amp/washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-n...
https://www.google.com/amp/washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-n...
2
Good Call SCOTUS. Now the pundits can pontificate more in their ivory towers while Rome burns around them lit u by their hard 'thinking'!
5
Who says "Redskins" is a disparaging term?
Not Native Americans...
"New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name"
Washington Post, May 19, 2016
"Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-ameri...
Not Native Americans...
"New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name"
Washington Post, May 19, 2016
"Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-ameri...
19
Grateful that his was a unanimous decision; however, why is there a need for a "defensive explanation" of why they chose their band name? Seriously. Why couldn't they have just said, "This is the band name we chose"
8
The right wing is angry that they are criticized by the left wing use the N word against African Americans, or the F word against gay men, and the list goes on.
Free speech allows for freedom of such expression, but it does not allow that people expressing hateful bigotry are entitled to respect from other citizens, and that is exactly what the right wing bitterly resents: they want it all, the bigotry and the respect.
They will never get that respect. Never. Not even with their man - Trump - in the White House.
Free speech allows for freedom of such expression, but it does not allow that people expressing hateful bigotry are entitled to respect from other citizens, and that is exactly what the right wing bitterly resents: they want it all, the bigotry and the respect.
They will never get that respect. Never. Not even with their man - Trump - in the White House.
16
The Redskins -- a professional sports team based in Washington, DC, our nation’s capitol and the center of all three branches of our federal government. “Redskins” seems incongruous and inappropriate on several levels, given historical events such as the Trail of Tears and the whole Manifest Destiny thing.
The Redskins franchise was valued at $2.85 billion in 2016 (Forbes), so of course the owners don’t want to make changes. I’m hoping that Jeff Bezos spends some of his pocket change, buys the franchise and changes the name to the Washington Rascals.
The Redskins franchise was valued at $2.85 billion in 2016 (Forbes), so of course the owners don’t want to make changes. I’m hoping that Jeff Bezos spends some of his pocket change, buys the franchise and changes the name to the Washington Rascals.
5
Most Indians not do find the name to be disparaging, so your concern is already addressed.
https://www.google.com/amp/washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-n...
https://www.google.com/amp/washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-n...
1
Why is it that the only people who seem to take offense to the name Redskins are white liberals? In Wichita, one of the local high schools uses the name Redskins and has for decades.
I’ve never heard of a problem with it. In fact, it’s a source of great pride for the school, which just so happens to be the most ethnically diverse school in the city. Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians and yes, Native Americans, all proudly proclaim its motto of “Once a Redskin, Always a Redskin.”
Honestly, the politically correct types need to go off and find something productive to do with their time. There are millions of real problems in the world. Please trying fixing those first!
I’ve never heard of a problem with it. In fact, it’s a source of great pride for the school, which just so happens to be the most ethnically diverse school in the city. Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians and yes, Native Americans, all proudly proclaim its motto of “Once a Redskin, Always a Redskin.”
Honestly, the politically correct types need to go off and find something productive to do with their time. There are millions of real problems in the world. Please trying fixing those first!
25
Paul: "Why is it that the only people who seem to take offense to the name Redskins are white liberals?"
In fact, the petitioners in "Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc." are five Native Americans:
Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc. Decision
https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/blackhorse-v-pro-football-in...
In fact, the petitioners in "Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc." are five Native Americans:
Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc. Decision
https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/blackhorse-v-pro-football-in...
8
If you look deeper you will see they are funded by white liberal interest groups.
3
I agree with the court decision. Also, the football team in Landover should do the decent thing, and change their name.
5
But was is wrong with using a name that doesn't offend Indians?
https://www.google.com/amp/washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-n...
https://www.google.com/amp/washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-n...
Would the conservative, "law and order" Alito use the same reasoning to strike down the many "hate crimes" which have in recent years been enacted across the nation? Have we not evolved as a society since 1929? Is it truly an ennobling endeavor to "proudly boast" that you have "protected" some reprehensible lout in uttering hate-filled, vile nonsense?
1
Ask him? We could care less.
1
Clearly we haven't evolved as a society, when people think the right way to convince other people to change their opinions is to make said opinions illegal, rather than engage the other side in respectful and well-meaning debate to determine who is right.
11
Alas, the Vancouver Canucks are safe ... phew.........
7
So am I allowed to name my team Washington Skinheads?
1
Technically.... yes. As to whether anyone would support or watch the team is a totally different matter.
4
Is hate speech acceptable?
1
If you ask any of the Originalist judges on the Supreme Court; who specialise in using the long-dead founding fathers as ventriloquist dummies; they will answer with a resounding "yes!".
Unfortunately you can't legislate basic manners and decency. Hate speech may well be free, but there should be social consequences for those who speak hatefully. It is regrettable that many who promote divisiveness are lauded as heroes instead of being condemned as the boorish cowards that they are, hiding behind the first amendment like naughty children.
Unfortunately you can't legislate basic manners and decency. Hate speech may well be free, but there should be social consequences for those who speak hatefully. It is regrettable that many who promote divisiveness are lauded as heroes instead of being condemned as the boorish cowards that they are, hiding behind the first amendment like naughty children.
1
Every day Democrats tell us that Republicans hate the poor, hate minorities, hate women, hate the LGBTQ, and hate government. So, yes, hate speech is very much allowed, even it results in a few of those haters getting shot.
7
"Acceptable?" No. But protected by the First Amendment (which does not protect one from any negative consequences of said speech).
The trade mark law is an infringement on the first amendment in the first place. American laws are overly protective of commercial profit and restrict the freedom of speech for individual persons.
4
Thank goodness. I am optimistic that this country is finally turning the tide on the speech police who have increasingly dominated public policy for the last 30 years. I was in college when the whole "PC" movement really came of age and it was just as intellectually bankrupt as it is today. If you think you can silence what you find offensive then you leave the door wide open to be silenced yourself. I am convinced this mindset is a major factor in todays bitter partisan divide because it gave way to a mentality that one side is right and one side is wrong - rather than it just being about different values.
Why is no one upset about the "fighting Irish"? I'm Irish and we wear it as a badge of pride. If I wanted to be winey I would say that it stereotypes us as drinkers and fighters (which it does), but I choose to view it's positive connotations, that of resourcefulness, roughness and grit. The American Indians would do well to take the same ownership of the Redskins and stop listening to the - largely non American Indian - winers who will stop an nothing until we are calling our teams Team A, Team B, ect, actually then they wold probably claim that we are exploiting the alphabet. Sounds stupid until you realize that this is the road you go down if you think you can be the judge of what is offensive. Bravo to the court! We still have a country of integrity.
Why is no one upset about the "fighting Irish"? I'm Irish and we wear it as a badge of pride. If I wanted to be winey I would say that it stereotypes us as drinkers and fighters (which it does), but I choose to view it's positive connotations, that of resourcefulness, roughness and grit. The American Indians would do well to take the same ownership of the Redskins and stop listening to the - largely non American Indian - winers who will stop an nothing until we are calling our teams Team A, Team B, ect, actually then they wold probably claim that we are exploiting the alphabet. Sounds stupid until you realize that this is the road you go down if you think you can be the judge of what is offensive. Bravo to the court! We still have a country of integrity.
28
Political correctness finally lost out to common sense!
28
Does anyone now not understand what lead to the election of Trump? Liberals!
9
Has anybody asked the Native Americans what they think? They might like to have some say in this matter.
8
Yeah, they consistently say it doesn't matter to them.
7
The Washington Post did...
"New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name"
May 19, 2016
"Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-ameri...
"New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name"
May 19, 2016
"Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-ameri...
3
We love our wedge issues.
It's sad that the football team sees this as a victory and a vindication.
It was never a question of whether the team could legally use the perjorative, "Redskins"; it was always a question of respect for Native Americans,and for basic decency. Would the team use the "N" word of it passed constitutional muster. Of course not: African Americans are big fans.
It was never a question of whether the team could legally use the perjorative, "Redskins"; it was always a question of respect for Native Americans,and for basic decency. Would the team use the "N" word of it passed constitutional muster. Of course not: African Americans are big fans.
2
There's actually no actiual law at all here. Trademark & patent law are federal branches of the law that each have their own bodies of jurisprudence, statutory, case & code law. Thus the only issue for the Redskins is the amount in controversy as a true trademark just as a true patent case doesn't bring up any constitutional issue--state or federal; for the Establishment Clause, freedom of religion & freedom of the press are not at issue here. As for the name "Slants[,]" it has been over-ruled time and time again as racially discriminatory when applied to one of its earlier adjudicated name usage cases: 'Slants' as a name for blinds that were not Levelor blinds and that had slants built and buttressed and engineered a certain way to keep one's eyes protected when looking in or out of a window through the window blinds. What happened with that sort of misuse of the so-called law of race discrimination--certainly the window slats themselves didn't violate Title VII, Title IX, Title XI et al; although when Koreans, Filipinos & Chinese suggested that the window blinds did indeed "work[,} they also denied them pension rights which such window blinds were entitled to, &, as well, Soc Sec pension rts fully vested & distributed--was that some of the then best art of window blind trade went completely out of business because a bunch of Asians complained about a purported racial epithet that they wanted to use exclusively by themselves. As such, rap is now overruled as free speech.
2
We have so many more important issues that need our attention than 62 high school teams that call themselves the Redskins.
10
Maybe a little common sense is in order. People who speak offensively will be marginalized by others. We don't need SCOTUS to police and rule on every instance.
Take "Jesus Christ" for instance. There's no context here so some are happy and some are not and most probably don't care. And yet without reading my mind, how can you know what I meant - especially because I don't know what I meant.
Wait a minute. Even that last statement is offensive to some. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone......
Take "Jesus Christ" for instance. There's no context here so some are happy and some are not and most probably don't care. And yet without reading my mind, how can you know what I meant - especially because I don't know what I meant.
Wait a minute. Even that last statement is offensive to some. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone......
3
Indeed, yes. Consider that N-word for example.
It took just a little less than 2 centuries, but eventually
white people stopped using it. (Well, mostly anyway.)
It took just a little less than 2 centuries, but eventually
white people stopped using it. (Well, mostly anyway.)
3
Too bad in our country our forefathers did not set up a "do the right thing" review board. It would be a board without any formal power to enforce any law or policy---it would just issue a brief resolution stating what the right thing to do in a given situation. In this case, we know the right thing to do---change the name. With health care, we know the right thing to do---insure everyone---health care is a right. With an immigration band---don't band an entire religion. These are all common sense ethical and moral responses and would make all of us feel like we did the right thing.
1
The logo elevates native Americans as it recognizes the fearless fighting character in native Americans.
12
You might also remember that pioneer "skin hunters" made their money turning in the skins of dead tribe members to the U.S. Calvary for a bounty. Not so innocent if you know history, huh?
5
To John Robbin: you just couldn't help yourself, posting a comment and attempting to insult everyone you don't agree with. I can assume you are a republican from your post and therefore a very thin skinned snowflake. No one takes offense like a republican, Sessions demonstrated that last week.
3
Nine justices agree, and so would many people: Anything will always be offensive to somebody.
9
They said nothing of the sort. What they said is hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. It protects the right to hate.
Actually, it was only eight justices, as the story states.
Hail to the REDSKINS! Hail to VICTORY (for common sense).
14
Meanwhile, China is fast becoming the first global economic superpower. Global empires do not die of natural causes, They commit suicide.
2
Excellent decision. Those who wish to erase the historic American nation will now have to rethink their strategy. If you are offended by someone's symbol or flag, tough. Look the other way.
4
All the comment disagreeing with this decision are exactly why we need the First Amendment to protect unpopular speech.
These folks would probably advocate PC mind control implants if feasible.
These folks would probably advocate PC mind control implants if feasible.
12
Thank goodness the justices rejected the notion that we need to expand the infantile academic concept of "safe zones."
9
I'm more concerned about the groups that want these names than to the names themselves. That's more telling of our character than a historical name.
1
Commonsense prevails, and wins over the political correctness activists.
A good day for our country -- we still must walk on egg shells, but our life got a little less complicated.
A good day for our country -- we still must walk on egg shells, but our life got a little less complicated.
Where it gets annoying is when a bunch of white people decide for people of color what is supposed to be offensive and what is not. I get that many of us whites want to be allies, but there's got to be a reason that black people, native people etc as a group don't seem to be having any kind of a love affair with white liberals. In fact, white liberals are some of the people most isolated from people color that I know, but many of these same whites sure seem to act like they know what's best for those folks of color.
TIMING IN DECADES: Not mentioned here but easily googled, the law (Lantham Act) dates to 1946 so it took 71 years to reach the SCOTUS and be overturned.
IMPACT ON OTHER GOVERNMENT PENALTIES: There's some validity in the idea the government can't restrict unpopular speech (with some exceptions like inciting to riot) but it seems to leave government agency fines imposed for broadcaster violations (f word etc) in future limbo.
ANYONE THINK OF BILL MAHER WHEN READING THIS? Sounds like we're in a place where Bill Maher can't use the "N" word but he could trademark it....
IMPACT ON OTHER GOVERNMENT PENALTIES: There's some validity in the idea the government can't restrict unpopular speech (with some exceptions like inciting to riot) but it seems to leave government agency fines imposed for broadcaster violations (f word etc) in future limbo.
ANYONE THINK OF BILL MAHER WHEN READING THIS? Sounds like we're in a place where Bill Maher can't use the "N" word but he could trademark it....
Perhaps they will conclude some day that companies that sell tobacco can advertise on TV
Amazing, really, that such an obvious thing ended up in court. And the Supreme Court, no less.
A good decision. Now every college should be required to conduct freshmen "free speech" seminars just as they do on "diversity." The Slants' suit can be the case study.
If one were to read the great First Amendment free speech cases of the 1940's-60's, you would see stuff that would make the name "The Slants" a sacred prayer by comparison. For better or worse, our Constitution protects free speech no matter how disparaging. It is up to us to allow it or not in polite company, but "Congress (and the States by virtue of the 14th Amendment) shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". A high barrier if there ever was one and the mother of the rest of our liberties.
1
I haven't read the Supreme Court brief, but one issue in lower courts was whether or not trademark protection amounts to a subsidy.
Normally, when the state weighs in on speech in such a way that discriminates between the viewpoint of the speaker or the content of the speech, courts applies a strict scrutiny standard. This is probably a good thing most of the time; we want the bar to be high for the state to decide what things can be said. On the other hand, when the state subsidizes speech, it usually uses a lower bar. For instance, if the government is handing out grants, it can refuse to give a grant to a group because it advocates something racist or extremist. Or, at least, the legal hurdle it has to meet to deny a subsidy for that reason is lower than the hurdle it has to meet for restricting speech on the same basis.
Are trademarks a subsidy? Courts have ruled that they are not, because taxpayer money isn't spent protecting them. Not sure if that's true, but suppose that it is. Trademarks are still a grant of property rights, with consequent legal powers to exclude others, to transfer, and to sell one's rights. Is the granting or expanding of property rights not a subsidy? The Court has ruled in a separate case that limiting what someone can do with their property rights can amount to a taking for which compensation is owed. Why shouldn't the granting of a legal right in the form of trademark protection not a benefit the state doles out, on par with a subsidy?
Normally, when the state weighs in on speech in such a way that discriminates between the viewpoint of the speaker or the content of the speech, courts applies a strict scrutiny standard. This is probably a good thing most of the time; we want the bar to be high for the state to decide what things can be said. On the other hand, when the state subsidizes speech, it usually uses a lower bar. For instance, if the government is handing out grants, it can refuse to give a grant to a group because it advocates something racist or extremist. Or, at least, the legal hurdle it has to meet to deny a subsidy for that reason is lower than the hurdle it has to meet for restricting speech on the same basis.
Are trademarks a subsidy? Courts have ruled that they are not, because taxpayer money isn't spent protecting them. Not sure if that's true, but suppose that it is. Trademarks are still a grant of property rights, with consequent legal powers to exclude others, to transfer, and to sell one's rights. Is the granting or expanding of property rights not a subsidy? The Court has ruled in a separate case that limiting what someone can do with their property rights can amount to a taking for which compensation is owed. Why shouldn't the granting of a legal right in the form of trademark protection not a benefit the state doles out, on par with a subsidy?
Most native Americans do not find Redskins to be disparaging. Assuming so is self serving moral outrage, not journalism.
9
There is a lot of that around, generally white middle-class folks motivated by guilt about their own privilege.
1
Funny - condemning one automatic, stereotype based assumption (Native Americans dislike the Redskins team name) by making another.
.
what an astonishing Nation of Wimps
'if I don't like your speech, I'll prevent you from using it'
woah Nelly, not so fast
in Berkeley, here is how it goes
Old Left = Free Speech
New Left = Stifle Speech
why does the New Left try and stifle speech?
BECAUSE THEY CAN!!!!!
and they will continue to until the Government / Institutions deny them this ability
your speech is not any different than mine
we both get to say what we want
Free Speech = End of Wimps
.
what an astonishing Nation of Wimps
'if I don't like your speech, I'll prevent you from using it'
woah Nelly, not so fast
in Berkeley, here is how it goes
Old Left = Free Speech
New Left = Stifle Speech
why does the New Left try and stifle speech?
BECAUSE THEY CAN!!!!!
and they will continue to until the Government / Institutions deny them this ability
your speech is not any different than mine
we both get to say what we want
Free Speech = End of Wimps
.
Olga Perez Stable Cox. A student at Orange Coast College in California secretly recorded her talking smack about Trump and Pence, and she was then accused of "acts of terrorism" by the Right and received death- threats. The student Republican group on campus are lobbying for her to be fired.
Turning Point USA publish a catalog of what they describe as "anti-American" college professors who dare to advocate for "leftist" things like gun-control.
How about right-wing student groups that lobby for trigger-warnings about nudity, sex or gay themes?
Or Republicans being twice as likely to support book-bans as Democrats?
How does that cognitive dissonance feel?
Turning Point USA publish a catalog of what they describe as "anti-American" college professors who dare to advocate for "leftist" things like gun-control.
How about right-wing student groups that lobby for trigger-warnings about nudity, sex or gay themes?
Or Republicans being twice as likely to support book-bans as Democrats?
How does that cognitive dissonance feel?
.
That's the point
all speech is free
not just yours, or mine, or PC Liberals, or Arch Conservatives
ALL speech
Thank God!
.
That's the point
all speech is free
not just yours, or mine, or PC Liberals, or Arch Conservatives
ALL speech
Thank God!
.
Sanity begins to creep back, slowly but surely.
2
Oh, my ! Someone is offended, and with that indignant rage, seeks to curtail the other parties Constitutional rights?
This was a no-brainer....
This was a no-brainer....
It's one thing to allow freedom of speech and expression. It is wholly different, when the government is forced to grant protected commercial utilization of such such speech or expression it deems offensive. We have progressed to forbid discrimination in offering commercial services. Why doesn't the same protection apply to the name of the businesses themselves. Commercial freedom of speech should not be extended to allow a trademark for "Whites Only Bar". Shouldn't freedom from commercial discrimination include both word and deed? Isn't this another example of commercial enterprises be given the freedom of speech rights that should only be reserved for people?
1
Bruce,
It's called the First Amendment. Consider it.
It's called the First Amendment. Consider it.
6
The government is only "forced" to do so because we have a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech. If you don't like it, start working to get an amendment passed. And good luck with that.
3
If you are suggesting that someone uttering an epithet while striking another over the head with a bat is exercising free speech, your being ludicrous. That's in no way implied nor intended here.
2
You can say anything you want ... as long as you don't offend the selective sensibilities of the liberals.
8
I am considered liberal, I suppose, but I do not at all find myself offended by practically anything -- and my lefty friends are as varied in their opinions as a crazy quilt. So the whole liberal/conservative divide just seems like a lazy shorthand, but it is understandable -- people like either/or evaluations -- and confirmation bias is in play all the time ...
This decision pretty much kills the argument that hate speech is not free speech or that hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.
3
The most important part of the decision is not the change to trademark law but its legal basis. The court reiterated for the umpteenth time, unanimously, that "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'" As long as we protect hate speech, we have freedom. Vive le hate speech!
3
The only people offended by the Redskins name and logo are disgruntled lefty activists whose sole function in life is apparently the skill of becoming selectively outraged and offended by anything not anointed by the liberal PC thought police. Especially if there is a buck to be made from the unmitigated distress and oppression of having to endure a Redskins-Cowboys Monday Night thriller.
9
This is a wise decision. No one has the right to impose speech on others.
6
If the Washington team follows this legal reasoning, it is acknowledging that its trademark is disparaging. And news organizations that use it are doing so as well. It's time for the New York Times to stop referring to or picturing this racist trademark. It's not fit to print.
1
No, it is acknowledging nothing of the sort. The Washington team would merely be arguing that that reasoning can not be used by someone else attempting to argue it is disparaging.
4
I agree with this decision. But for me the legal aspect is not really the central issue. The central issue, and what I don't agree with and what is hard to understand, is why some people would hold on to something so tightly when it is clearly very offensive and hurtful to a large group of people. I certainly understand if you have strong attachment to the name, but is it really worth it in the end?
2
It's only difficult to understand if you've both decided that the term is offensive and that "a large group of people" agree with you. Then it would matter if that "large group" had any relevance to the purpose for which the trademark was intended. Not to mention that I would guess the "offended groups" are far larger in your mind than in mine.
1
Is it?
The offense is in the eye of the beholder - "Redskins" for instance, is NOT considered an offensive name for the football team by 90% of actual real Native Americans, when this issue has been polled. And it's not a name that started as an offensive name either. Likewise - "Slants" - only offensive if you let it be, and the band that is using the name wants to reclaim and embrace the term - much as Yankees and Gays did with their offensive nicknames.
The offense is in the eye of the beholder - "Redskins" for instance, is NOT considered an offensive name for the football team by 90% of actual real Native Americans, when this issue has been polled. And it's not a name that started as an offensive name either. Likewise - "Slants" - only offensive if you let it be, and the band that is using the name wants to reclaim and embrace the term - much as Yankees and Gays did with their offensive nicknames.
7
We are all so quick to be certain not to further disparage Indigenous Peoples. I wish we all cared so much and got so heated about whether those very people had running water, sufficient food, education, jobs, and adequate medical care. So easy to sit back in our comfort and debate names, while we ignore their real issues. There's a name to call ourselves: Complacent.
6
But, the Slants are Asian-American, right? Are ‘Redskin’ team members Native American? Or are they referring to a variety of potatoes? I didn't think so. I mean, that's the problem, as I see it.
1
Then what's the threshold? if a five piece band of Asians loses its drummer and a non-Asian replaces them, is the trademark now void? Likewise, if Washington adds a native American player to its roster, is that enough to make the name permissible? If not, how much playing time, for instance, must he achieve for it to be? What if he's the only native on the team but he's the highest paid?
2
LCA,
You make some good points. Plus, you can't run an ad in the paper saying, 'Asian drummer needed;' that in itself would be discriminatory.
Perhaps my decorum bar is set a little lower for artists? It's probably unfair, but I admit I am willing to overlook 'bad' behavior from Paul Gaugin to Pier Paolo Pasolini to Keith Moon. I don't do football.
I guess, also, I've never been in the company of anyone (never, I think) who disparagingly referred to anyone as a slant. I remember, however, my grandfather reading books about 'dirty redskins.' As a woman, you know I've heard some nasty stuff.
I mean I guess the best way to counter the use of 'Redskins,' is for those who are personally offended and those who support the offended parties to continue to speak out against the use of the name (which does viscerally come off as pretty lame sounding to me) and suggest less offensive alternatives. I guess if nobody bought tickets their name would change pretty quickly. I would think in years to come the name 'Redskins' would just kind of get phased out, because younger people would think it sounded weird. I don't know the Slants, so I don't know if their music will be around as long as Bob Dylan. (I do remember one of the members of The Band saying they had been the Hawks, but then that started to mean something and they considered the Crackers, but nixed that. I like the band Joy Division, but their named is based on something pretty awful.)
You're right, what's the threshold?
You make some good points. Plus, you can't run an ad in the paper saying, 'Asian drummer needed;' that in itself would be discriminatory.
Perhaps my decorum bar is set a little lower for artists? It's probably unfair, but I admit I am willing to overlook 'bad' behavior from Paul Gaugin to Pier Paolo Pasolini to Keith Moon. I don't do football.
I guess, also, I've never been in the company of anyone (never, I think) who disparagingly referred to anyone as a slant. I remember, however, my grandfather reading books about 'dirty redskins.' As a woman, you know I've heard some nasty stuff.
I mean I guess the best way to counter the use of 'Redskins,' is for those who are personally offended and those who support the offended parties to continue to speak out against the use of the name (which does viscerally come off as pretty lame sounding to me) and suggest less offensive alternatives. I guess if nobody bought tickets their name would change pretty quickly. I would think in years to come the name 'Redskins' would just kind of get phased out, because younger people would think it sounded weird. I don't know the Slants, so I don't know if their music will be around as long as Bob Dylan. (I do remember one of the members of The Band saying they had been the Hawks, but then that started to mean something and they considered the Crackers, but nixed that. I like the band Joy Division, but their named is based on something pretty awful.)
You're right, what's the threshold?
I don't get it -- can't the government deny the official trademark application without in any way curtailing free speech? Say whatever you want, but don't expect a special concession from the government to make money from an offensive image or name.
3
If you are saying a business cannot trademark their business name, you are effectively saying they can't use that as their name with the same protections as any other business/band/football team/etc. That does curtail the possible choices.
5
So does this mean if an individual is using a trademarked epithet while injuring someone who is the target of the epithet, is said crime protected under the 1st Amendment as free speech, too?
3
Injuring feelings is not - and should not be - a crime.
14
Maybe that's an indication of a hate crime, but the constitution doesn't protect injuring someone.
3
If you are suggesting that someone uttering an epithet while striking another over the head with a bat is exercising free speech, your being ludicrous. That's in no way implied nor intended here.
4
This case was brought by Obama's Solicitor General's Office which was clearly hostile to reporters and the first amendment in general. All nine Justices, liberal and conservative, thought this restriction was clearly viewpoint discrimination, an assault on the first amendment. Obama's knowledge of constitutional law can be catalogued in the space of a single tweet... "Thin and none!"
12
Yes, the so-called "Constitutional Scholar" had extensive knowledge and understanding of liberal ideology, but that's where his expertise ended.
3
It is a surprise to me that such an innocent case of either "red skin" or "slants" need Supreme Court to decide. No wonder our Justices getting old fast.
2
I think it's one case if the group wanting to use the disparaging term is the group that is being disparaged - like gays who use the word queer. It seems to me quite a different thing if another group is doing it - like white nationalists calling blacks the "N" word. So at some point it becomes hate speech and I don't believe that be trademarked. And still another if it is an official group like a team for our national sport of baseball. And another thing still if the government does it.
How about this...The Slants record a number one hit. A non-Asian broadcaster plays the song and identifies it at the end. Is the DJ wrong?
The Slants-Redskins comparison is a false equivalency. The members of the Slants, who are all Asian-American, said their name is meant to "adopt and reform a disparaging term about Asians". In other words, the term is invoked as a reclamation of a prejudicial phrase by members of a group directly targeted by its use.
The Redskins' situation, as I see it, is entirely different. Not only have the Redskins not made any attempt to frame the racist slur and imagery associated with their name as reclamatory, but as they are an organization of primarily non-Native people, they would be wrong in attempting to justify themselves so in the first place.
I hope that federal courts understand the nuance required in handling all cases of appropriation and reclamation and begin to treat them on a case-by-case basis.
The Redskins' situation, as I see it, is entirely different. Not only have the Redskins not made any attempt to frame the racist slur and imagery associated with their name as reclamatory, but as they are an organization of primarily non-Native people, they would be wrong in attempting to justify themselves so in the first place.
I hope that federal courts understand the nuance required in handling all cases of appropriation and reclamation and begin to treat them on a case-by-case basis.
11
The court dockets already have too much of a backlog. The courts cannot resolve every difference or right every wrong and should not be expected to do so. There is other action that can be taken, however, like boycotting the product or organization whose trademark offends you.
3
Does this mean the "n" word can be trademarked by a White person? As for Indians, my understanding is that most Indians don't care about the Redskins' name.
1
According to Justice Alito, the Redskins' situation is not different under the law. He wrote:
"It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."*
**********
* "U.S. top court finds law banning offensive trademarks unconstitutional"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-band-idUSKBN19A1YP
"It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."*
**********
* "U.S. top court finds law banning offensive trademarks unconstitutional"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-band-idUSKBN19A1YP
7
Calling someone a heathen is insulting to whom? The person or the heathens.
Same context and a wise saying:
Everyone is someone else's idiot.
Same context and a wise saying:
Everyone is someone else's idiot.
You can't prohibit things because someone "feels" offended, Obviously, you can if there is a direct insult. But we live in a country in which there are clearly false, fraudulent, hurtful things said about political opponents, and the flag is used, abused, demeaned in order to market anything that will bring in money. Let's be reasonable.
8
You are talking about the modern day left in the U.S., almost everything offends them.
8
A direct insult is perfectly good in the USA. Read up on your defamation law. It doesn't protect people from being insulted. it protects your reputation, not your feelings, especially if you can prove you've become unemployable because of it. A highly improbable event.
3
The only singing group who offends me are The Trolls.
1
More than a decade ago, in the authoritative linguistic survey “I Am A Red-Skin: The Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826),” Ives Goddard—the senior linguist and curator at the Smithsonian Institution—concluded that the word “redskins” was created by Native Americans, and that it was first used as an inclusive expression of solidarity by multi-tribal delegations who traveled to Washington, D.C. to negotiate national policy towards Native Americans. “The actual origin of the word (redskin) is entirely benign,” Goddard is quoted as saying.
The name Redskins has always been in the image of honor, loyalty and courage. Anyone claiming anything different is ignoring the history of the team.
The name Redskins has always been in the image of honor, loyalty and courage. Anyone claiming anything different is ignoring the history of the team.
12
The term offensive is rather subjective. You cannot suspend rights over such an arbitrary feeling. Some people find the term Planned Parenthood offensive.
This rare unanimous (Gorusch out) decision illustrates the court and the country's belief in free speech. It is my hope that it puts this entire idea of hate speech legislation to a dead standstill. Hurtful speech is just as protected as any other and it must be for there to be any protection at all.
This rare unanimous (Gorusch out) decision illustrates the court and the country's belief in free speech. It is my hope that it puts this entire idea of hate speech legislation to a dead standstill. Hurtful speech is just as protected as any other and it must be for there to be any protection at all.
1
In Indian Country, some are offended, others are happy to wear these logo imprinted clothes. It can't be said it offends all Indians/Native Americans. At least that's my take from walking around the local casinos, restaurants and plaza here. I don't like it, but some do, and they're on Tribal Rolls, I'm not, and it is their right, either way.
4
The Santa Fe Indian School in Santa Fe, New Mexico is owned by the 19 Pueblos of that state.
Their teams are known as The Braves.
Their teams are known as The Braves.
5
The first amendment is our sacred heritage. The Redskins will live on, as will the drunken red-faced Chief Wahoo on the cap of the beloved Cleveland Indians. Finally a sane decision to quiet the uber sensitive politically correct
masses that are running our liberty into the ground. Three cheers for the Redskins!!!!
masses that are running our liberty into the ground. Three cheers for the Redskins!!!!
6
Wonderful news, I'm going to trademark "Trump's Severed Head", the worlds best troll bait.
11
Now the Trump trademarks can be renewed in the U.S. too, not just Russia!
3
It is worth noting that the First Amendment only protects offensive speech--if nobody is offended by it, there is no need to protect it. If you don't believe in protecting offensive speech, you don't believe in the First Amendment.
Say whatever you want, and may the best ideas prevail.
Say whatever you want, and may the best ideas prevail.
26
excellent point, that too few people appreciate!
6
Would you have an example of anything in contemporary speech that does not offend someone?
9
"Thank you!"
3
A win for freedom of expression. Also any laws made usually don't deal with such complex and subjective thing correctly. Most Native Americans, including I don't care honestly. Some even embrace it. Oklahoma means "Land of the Redman", there is nothing disparaging about living in Oklahoma. It's actually one of the few states that accept tribal healthcare.
6
The redskins will get to keep their trademark, but the right to offend is not the right to be free from the consequences. It is insane to me that a major sports team continues to maintain such a hideously racist name, with a legacy of genocide attached to it. I hope consumers and sports fans will come to their senses in the court of public opinion.
64
The team was named Redskins 81 years ago. The name was always in the spirit of loyalty, honor, courage and respect - qualities to be revered of the American Native Indian.
Famous Indian leaders such as Sitting Bull, Tecumseh and French Cow all considered themselves "Redskins or Red men".
Who are you to tell them they are racists?
Who are you to deny the real intent of the team name?
You do a disservice in implying there has always been racism intended here and you are clearly wrong. It is only racist because someone else told you it was.
Famous Indian leaders such as Sitting Bull, Tecumseh and French Cow all considered themselves "Redskins or Red men".
Who are you to tell them they are racists?
Who are you to deny the real intent of the team name?
You do a disservice in implying there has always been racism intended here and you are clearly wrong. It is only racist because someone else told you it was.
14
Notre Dame's "Fighting Irish" logo never generates a peep out of "Liberal" hate speech pedaling snobs.
3
and that is where the punishment should come from, if there is to be any, from commercial interests to be damaged. Think that if enough people are active in different methods of boycotting, that could provide real damage to the team's bottom line. But, agree that for the gov't to get into the business of which words are offensive and which are not is a quite slippery slope, beset with fads of the day, and sets a dangerous precedence, even leading to speech control. That we need to guard ever so closely, as there is always a lefty or righty telling us not only what is good for us, our country, but take it to, "you cannot say that". Need to keep dodging that bullet, lest we bounce back and forth endlessly between what is "right", and what is "not permitted", as deemed by our governing bodies.
2
This decision perpetuates the misguided attitude that the First Amendment allows Americans to freely insult one another.
3
Actually, the First Amendment very clearly allows Americans to insult each other. No one needs a civil right to be allowed to say nice things. The First Amendment protects offensive speech. It really is that simple.
22
Have you been reading this comment section very long?
1
As originally written, and for its time, the First Amendment protected the new Americans from going to jail if they disrespected George Washington or wanted to speak out on favor of or against statehood and assimilation into the newly formed United States of America. It was a guarantee to the citizens that they could speak publicly without fear.
3
Context. That seems to be what many of the comments are ignoring. No, the government doesn't have the right to limit speech, so the judgment in this case is correct. In America, people can say whatever they like, but decent human beings try to avoid using names or terms that they know are hurtful and/or denigrating to other people. It's called decency and respect.
In the case of the Slants, they are calling themselves a name that in many ways reclaims how this word was used to hurt them in the past. The Redskins, however, fight anyone who says that their continued use of the term perpetuates harmful stereotypes against victims of genocide. Sure, they can legally use it, but their morals and ethics are suspect when they ignore the suffering of other people simply to avoid the huge expense of changing their branding.
Yes, sticks and stones and all that, but if we are trying to improve ourselves as a society, it should be clear that such offensive terms have no place in our vocabulary. Another common moral we are taught as children should take precedence: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There's a reason it's called the Golden Rule.
In the case of the Slants, they are calling themselves a name that in many ways reclaims how this word was used to hurt them in the past. The Redskins, however, fight anyone who says that their continued use of the term perpetuates harmful stereotypes against victims of genocide. Sure, they can legally use it, but their morals and ethics are suspect when they ignore the suffering of other people simply to avoid the huge expense of changing their branding.
Yes, sticks and stones and all that, but if we are trying to improve ourselves as a society, it should be clear that such offensive terms have no place in our vocabulary. Another common moral we are taught as children should take precedence: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There's a reason it's called the Golden Rule.
6
Are you unaware of the origin of the word redskin? Google Ives Goddard.
4
The real context here isn't whether government has any right to free speech, which it actually does not. So the context is, can your thin skin - red, white, brown or black - perch shoulder to shoulder with Americans who don't live on such a lofty roost you do? Or should your life view preclude anyone else's?
1
This is not about us. It's about government. The Bill of Rights binds government, not people. The band, and the team, can use any name they like, and I can be offended, or not, as I like. But government cannot referee.
10
Whenever a SCOTUS decision is unanimous (8-0 in this case), the reasoning (?) underlying the critics' objections carries little weight.
jasper
jasper
7
Being offensive - according to some - isn't enough reason for our gov't to say you can't use that as your name. The Slants - they're adapting a negative name as a source of pride. Football team names - likewise - are something you are proud of, a goal to exemplify, not an insult. My husband is a Chickasaw, and like most other Native Americans, he doesn't see Redskins as an insult as a name. It can be used as an insult - but in that case it isn't.
Nevertheless - the key here is that it should not be decided what names can and cannot be trademarked by a company based on offense. There's plenty of offensive things out there - such as when some lobbyist group full of corporate money trying to destroy our environment or civil rights gives itself a name like "council of concerned citizens" or similar. Now THAT'S offensive!
Nevertheless - the key here is that it should not be decided what names can and cannot be trademarked by a company based on offense. There's plenty of offensive things out there - such as when some lobbyist group full of corporate money trying to destroy our environment or civil rights gives itself a name like "council of concerned citizens" or similar. Now THAT'S offensive!
6
Good decision! The Law must not be allowed to regulate anything based on feelings.
12
While the right rejoices at this correct ruling let's remind them that it would also protect one's right to burn an American flag.
4
The difference is that words physically harm no one, where as a burning flag can be a physical safety issue.
4
Great. So let's ban flag burning. While we are protecting people from danger, we should also ban any open fire, gas or electric stoves, cars, and guns. All of these create far more physical danger than a burning flag.
4
Liberals are also applauding this decision. The ACLU supported the band.
It's the extreme left that is having problems understanding that there is no legal basis for the government to outlaw something that offends it.
It's the extreme left that is having problems understanding that there is no legal basis for the government to outlaw something that offends it.
4
Add that to the list of why Hillary lost.
9
Around the world there are more than 5,000 different Indigenous Peoples, speaking more than 4,000 languages.
They have different customs and cultures, but they do share some unpleasant realities: removal of their lands, denial of their culture, physical attacks and being treated as second-class citizens.
Indigenous Peoples are often marginalized and face discrimination in countries’ legal systems. This leaves them at further risk of violence and abuse. Indigenous human rights defenders who speak out face intimidation and violence, often supported by the state.
Did we really expect a different Supreme Court decision in this (or any) era?
They have different customs and cultures, but they do share some unpleasant realities: removal of their lands, denial of their culture, physical attacks and being treated as second-class citizens.
Indigenous Peoples are often marginalized and face discrimination in countries’ legal systems. This leaves them at further risk of violence and abuse. Indigenous human rights defenders who speak out face intimidation and violence, often supported by the state.
Did we really expect a different Supreme Court decision in this (or any) era?
3
If you cared so much - you'd care about the fact that 90% of those indigenous people represented by this name, when polled, find this a pointless issue.
Deal with the discrimination, marginalization, physical attacks - this is a non-issue that only serves to distract and make some people feel like they're noble for opposing a name that isn't hurting anyone.
Deal with the discrimination, marginalization, physical attacks - this is a non-issue that only serves to distract and make some people feel like they're noble for opposing a name that isn't hurting anyone.
14
Please list the surveys you are referencing. There will be eventual harm associated with this decision. Alt Right groups for example can hypothetically trademark any catch phrase which calls attention to their cause and stick it on items commonly sold in our society, thus normalizing hate speech. Add this to the list of irritants which have desensitized our once civil society.
2
As a third generation American of Irish ancestry, I'm offended whenever I see a British flag, the color orange or potatoes on sale. What's my recourse.
Football is an offensive game. Offensive, not OFFensive. What difference does it make if one group of performers has an offensive name?
For a chuckle, see George Carlin's routine about football vs baseball.
Sticks and stones.....that's what we were taught as kids but it was never really true. Words can be hateful and hurtful just look at what has come to light on children who were bullied. We are all hurt by insults and slanders even though temporary it can be just as painful as being physically hit. We have taken this anti "political correctness" as an excuse for uncivil behavior. My Mom also said not to be rude.
1
Nothing in the opinion encourages people to be unkind or uncivil. Everyone recognizes that words can hurt. The question, though, is whether the government should be in charge of saying what is and is not offensive. Justice Kennedy says this in his opinion: "A law that can be directed against speech found offensive
to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the
government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society."
to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the
government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society."
30
Whether only sticks and stones can hurt us isn't the point. The fact is that learning to be hurt is part of growing up. So critics, grow up. Accept a little hate and battle it if you want. But don't shut people up. That doesn't stop the hate. You must understand that or you will lose.
1
Who get's to decide that "Redskins" is a disparaging term?
Actual Native Americans don't think so...
"Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-ameri...
Actual Native Americans don't think so...
"Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-ameri...
14
The Slants don't represent an American city. Bands can be as offensive as they care to be but you have to seek them out in order to be offended. It's kind of hard to avoid the Redskins logo if you live in the Washington area.
The Redskins don't represent an American City as well. They represent a football team that makes millions (if not billions) of dollars and if Football is your God on Friday/Saturday/Sunday then you need to get out and enjoy the things that do represent American cities and life. When I think of Washington DC, Redskins probably don't make the top 100 (I haven't counted) but so many pop into my mind before a game.
2
For those who think "liberals" are a little thin-skinned" when it comes to "disparaging speech or images," well, I think Kathy Griffin should trademark her image of tRump and start making big-time royalties. She could call her new brand "decap-a-trump!" She should also spruce up the image for good effect!!!!
Is it in incredibly bad taste? Yes!
Is it offensive? Yes!
Is it protected speech? Yes!
Hey all you tough "real Americans" (who have no trouble with foul, disgusting and offensive language it seems), Griffin served up a very provocative image that many of you didn't like. Seems when the shoe is on the other foot, we "liberals" have be kind and gentle to the other side's sensibilities. Right?
Is it in incredibly bad taste? Yes!
Is it offensive? Yes!
Is it protected speech? Yes!
Hey all you tough "real Americans" (who have no trouble with foul, disgusting and offensive language it seems), Griffin served up a very provocative image that many of you didn't like. Seems when the shoe is on the other foot, we "liberals" have be kind and gentle to the other side's sensibilities. Right?
7
As a conservative, Kathy Griffin can trademark her image, no big deal. It is free speech and it is perfectly okay for her shows to be canceled, her sponsors to drop her, CNN to fire her, and so on.
If you want to support her you can, no big deal. Free speech shows the true color of a man or woman and also let's other decide if they want to listen or move on with their life.
If you want to support her you can, no big deal. Free speech shows the true color of a man or woman and also let's other decide if they want to listen or move on with their life.
5
You're missing the point: Kathi Griffin's offensive act was never branded as a criminal act - it was criticized to by a large majority of people based on their judgment that it was in very poor taste. Including her sponsors. And anyone who wanted to withdraw support from her is free to do so.
6
So for you, it's all about the "commercialization" of speech. As long as right-wing, hate radio and the like can spew filth and lies and turn a profit (or football teams dawn offensive mascots), well then, all of our notions of decency don't matter. But let one "politically correct" liberal poke one of your icons in the eye and it's all about "ratings."
this is particularly hilarious when you consider that I can't join Facebook with my real last name because some bozo there decided it was an "offensive" word, yet is my (and my family's) legit surname. I had to borrow my husband's surname so now I'm virtually invisible in social media.
thanks, Mr zuckerberg.
thanks, Mr zuckerberg.
4
FB is not the government. Private companies get to set their own rules. The solution to that is walking with your time and your dollars.
3
Reading many of the comments associated with this article, I find it interesting that conservatives consider the changing of some team name as being PC and ascribe the activity as something on liberals "force on" to others. Does it not occur to them that it's merely being civil?
On the other hand, they have no problem trying to limit legally protected abortions for women.
On the other hand, they have no problem trying to limit legally protected abortions for women.
3
It may be an issue of merely being civil, but the bigger point is that it's not up to some unelected bureaucrat to make that determination or for the government in general to control manners.
5
I'd rather battle for my rights to my own body, than over a stupid name. This isn't something that is universally agreed on with liberals.
2
It's not the same. Liberals throw out unsubstantiated epithets (racist, homophobe, etc.) every time they think they're losing an argument to shut down and shut up their opponents. I think that's what conservatives have come to learn and have come to find quite oppressive, and they don't want to see it extended to a government-language police force.
3
Why is it I feel like if the Redskins were from any other town in the country, where the fan base did not include an inordinate number of United States Senators and Representatives, the name in question would've been gone ages ago?
4
I totally agree with this one. The term "Yankee" was first used as a British insult to the American colonists, who then decided to adopt it for themselves in a kind of "in your face" thing. And I understand some Southerners still use the term to insult someone they don't like.
5
And Southerners with their remarkably thin skin are all shocked, Shocked! to discover that we are all Yanquís to our friends south of the Rio Grande, or Rio Bravo.
Hail to the Redskins!
To Hell with political correctness!
Thank you, SCOTUS, for upholding the First Amendment.
To Hell with political correctness!
Thank you, SCOTUS, for upholding the First Amendment.
14
The first amendment is clearly in trouble. With the Alex Jones' of the world spinning poor information into hate, with the Citizen United decision allowing corporations representation of their entire work force with money, with hateful names given structural governmental support, and with speech that purposely misinforms voters, we need change. Does the SCOTUS have any credibility left?
1
Hateful names are not being given structural government support. We are just remembering that using the power of the government to restrict speech is a bad path. "A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society." This decision is a victory for people who love liberty and freedom.
3
Boycott those who will disparage those among us. Those names will change so fast your head will spin. You couldn't pay me enough to go to a game that features the 'Redskins'.
5
The original baseball team in Atlanta was called the "Atlanta Crackers."
9
I'm seeing a lot of coments along the lines of "liberals shouldn't tell people what to think or decide what's offensive," (I know I'm off the topic of the article) but isn't that exactly whay conservatives do worth regards to lgbt and reproductive rights?
12
Only far worse.
Suggesting that a name is offensive - that doesn't deny people equal rights to marry, adopt, or make their own choices about the medical care of their body. I'm far more offended when someone makes a law that will take my rights away and could kill me than when they're just saying that some term or other is offensive.
Suggesting that a name is offensive - that doesn't deny people equal rights to marry, adopt, or make their own choices about the medical care of their body. I'm far more offended when someone makes a law that will take my rights away and could kill me than when they're just saying that some term or other is offensive.
4
Not to mention the huff conservative got in over Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem. Or over the current Julius Caesar production in Central Park.
Both sides are guilty of trying to tell people what is offensive, conservatives just as much as liberals.
Both sides are guilty of trying to tell people what is offensive, conservatives just as much as liberals.
4
Not when it comes to reproductive rights because pro-lifers have a compelling argument that the life of the unborn child needs protection. As a society, we don't allow individuals to take the life of others for convenience.
I can’t be the only one who grew up with peoples mother's using the saying, "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"...as a reminder that someone saying something mean or ugly is not them physically assaulting you, and mother to son, "stop being a wussy, unless that kid punched you in the face you aren't hurt...now get back outside and play!"
But it seems our recent generations never really went out and played like previous generations...you know where a crash on a bicycle taught you how to ride...and there were no helmets and pads? These millennial snowflakes are likely "triggered" by, "sticks and stones may break my bones" as if this indicates a physical threat...and their parents never told them they had to compete and work hard to be good ant anything if they want to succeed in life...instead giving the snowflakes "participation trophies".
Leftist play word wars for control as a political weapon. We see nearly on a daily basis Democrats saying and portraying things that would be considered hate speech and fomenting violence if a Republican did the same in a mirror context. The left aren't afraid of words, they simply want to forbid anyone using words they don’t approve of. Kind of like the Right does with cursing...they display the same kind of outrage over words that hurt no one except those sensitive to them. Muslims? Same thing...you better not even think about talking the wrong way about Muhammad or draw him…or you may die.
But it seems our recent generations never really went out and played like previous generations...you know where a crash on a bicycle taught you how to ride...and there were no helmets and pads? These millennial snowflakes are likely "triggered" by, "sticks and stones may break my bones" as if this indicates a physical threat...and their parents never told them they had to compete and work hard to be good ant anything if they want to succeed in life...instead giving the snowflakes "participation trophies".
Leftist play word wars for control as a political weapon. We see nearly on a daily basis Democrats saying and portraying things that would be considered hate speech and fomenting violence if a Republican did the same in a mirror context. The left aren't afraid of words, they simply want to forbid anyone using words they don’t approve of. Kind of like the Right does with cursing...they display the same kind of outrage over words that hurt no one except those sensitive to them. Muslims? Same thing...you better not even think about talking the wrong way about Muhammad or draw him…or you may die.
9
In a country granted the right for free speech it's our responsibility to self censor not the courts. If something is truly offensive the majority simply won't support it. Free speech is a gift and a burden but we are blessed to have the luxury.
10
Trademarks have nothing to do with free speech. They have to do exclusively with controlling the speech of others. All that granting the trademark does is keep other bands/football teams etc. from using the same name. How does that make anyone's speech more free than it was before?
All we are talking about is whether or not a governmentally granted monopoly will be extended to a specific brand. This doesn't mean trademarks in general or these in particular are good or bad. It just means the topic has nothing to do with free speech.
Those who call this a victory for free speech simply do not understand what "free speech" means.
Sad.
All we are talking about is whether or not a governmentally granted monopoly will be extended to a specific brand. This doesn't mean trademarks in general or these in particular are good or bad. It just means the topic has nothing to do with free speech.
Those who call this a victory for free speech simply do not understand what "free speech" means.
Sad.
63
thanks for the clarification, but the article does say "first amendment" so readers (and the reporter) should be forgiven for being mistaken. in addition, the appeals court did say "hurtful speech", so the issues are related.
3
By providing intellectual property protections for material a government favors, and denying them for content it dislikes a goverment can effectively sensor content.
Suppose a government removed copyright protection from books with offensive material such that anyone could copy and sell an "offensive" book. You would effectively be censoring those "offensive" views because no one could make a living off of such books.
For a sports team or a book endeavor to be practicle they must be able to make a profit. Denying IP protection denies the profit needed to fund many endeavors. Suppose the NYT could not copyright it's content and free cloned content appeared on the web shortly after it was published. Or digitized scans of the hard copy paper appeared online an hour after it was publishe? How could it afford to create the content?
The Supreme Court Got it right in my opinion.
Freedom of speech as originally understood is pretty much absolute. Obviously you can not leak national security secrets you have promised not to, falsely shout fire in a theater, or provide instructions for making ENDs. Nor can who spread false hoods by speech or writing. However, I believe the right to otherwise express ideas is near absolute.
Suppose a government removed copyright protection from books with offensive material such that anyone could copy and sell an "offensive" book. You would effectively be censoring those "offensive" views because no one could make a living off of such books.
For a sports team or a book endeavor to be practicle they must be able to make a profit. Denying IP protection denies the profit needed to fund many endeavors. Suppose the NYT could not copyright it's content and free cloned content appeared on the web shortly after it was published. Or digitized scans of the hard copy paper appeared online an hour after it was publishe? How could it afford to create the content?
The Supreme Court Got it right in my opinion.
Freedom of speech as originally understood is pretty much absolute. Obviously you can not leak national security secrets you have promised not to, falsely shout fire in a theater, or provide instructions for making ENDs. Nor can who spread false hoods by speech or writing. However, I believe the right to otherwise express ideas is near absolute.
3
Shouting fire in a crowded theater was a crafty way for Justice Holmes to allow an escape from the first amendment and to demonstrate it's incoherent. But he was dead wrong. I have spent years (40 years of law teaching) vainly trying to find a case where it really happened. We have trampled on the First Amendment under the flag of a non-existent entity. Enough already!
1
Being "PC" is just another form of discrimination. Nothing more than liberal morons attempting to tell me what I can & cannot say. And these same people are shouting down and attacking conservative speakers in an attempt to silence them from speaking. They support killing Trump in the Central Park play, condone Kathy Griffith's disgusting actions, and could care less about the Clinton's shenanigans, but are 100% convinced Trump has done something illegal, regardless of the fact that they. Have no evidence what so ever to support their claims.
The hypocrisy on the left knows no bounds.
The hypocrisy on the left knows no bounds.
13
You need to tone down your anger, and see "them" as people with opinions different from your own, and accept that fact that you are very, very unlikely to be right about everything, so maybe you should listen to what other people have to say.
Beyond that, making things up like "condone Kathy Griffith's disgusting actions" (um, exactly who, when and where), "could are less about Clinton's..." (again, exactly who, when and where), and "but are 100% convinced Trump has" (um, no, I don't know anyone who says that, what people are saying is that he needs to be properly investigated and he and the Republican Congress need to stop stonewalling on such an investigation).
Again... you need to tone it down, you need to see your enemies as fellow Americans with differing opinions, and you need to detox yourself by eliminating false hyperbole from your thought process.
Beyond that, making things up like "condone Kathy Griffith's disgusting actions" (um, exactly who, when and where), "could are less about Clinton's..." (again, exactly who, when and where), and "but are 100% convinced Trump has" (um, no, I don't know anyone who says that, what people are saying is that he needs to be properly investigated and he and the Republican Congress need to stop stonewalling on such an investigation).
Again... you need to tone it down, you need to see your enemies as fellow Americans with differing opinions, and you need to detox yourself by eliminating false hyperbole from your thought process.
14
Get of your high horse, pretending conservatives are better that way, but being just as discriminatory. Conservatives shout down liberals just as much. You want the right to offend? Better grant to to other as well.
The Julius Caesar production is a good example. The play doesn't even support killing Caesar, and no one got offended when a different production had an Obama-like Caesar killed (neither liberals nor conservatives). Kathy Griffin (as a liberal I did not condone her action) and the Central Park theater have the same rights to offensive speech as you do. But conservatives wanted both punished.
Conservatives want the right to be "un-PC", but have a huge problem if someone says something against their views. See Kaepernick, Colin
The Julius Caesar production is a good example. The play doesn't even support killing Caesar, and no one got offended when a different production had an Obama-like Caesar killed (neither liberals nor conservatives). Kathy Griffin (as a liberal I did not condone her action) and the Central Park theater have the same rights to offensive speech as you do. But conservatives wanted both punished.
Conservatives want the right to be "un-PC", but have a huge problem if someone says something against their views. See Kaepernick, Colin
3
Everyone seems to be cheering this decision by SCOTUS. The article says the First Amendment has been applied inconsistently 'both registering and rejecting trademarks for the terms “Heeb,” “Dago,” “Injun” and “Squaw.”' As a Jew, I would find naming a sports team the "Heebs" or the "Kikes" more than disparaging. I would find it an insult and bigoted. This is not Freedom of Speech as much as it is Freedom to Disrespect. In a world that is becoming increasingly desensitized to the pain of others, I think the worst is yet to come. Granted, words are just words but then how would one respond to a sports team named the "Nazis?" Many would be appalled and refuse to attend. The problem is, there are far too many who would attend and cheer them on to victory.
3
Point taken, but you do have the "Freedom to Disrepect" and it's not the governments place to dictate your speech except in very limited circumstances. Hurt feelings really doesn't make that criteria.
5
If someone wants to use that term, the problem isn't the trademark. The problem would be those who would still choose to attend. But it's freedom of speech - including the freedom to use offensive terms, including the freedom to boycott if you dislike the term used.
1
I was involved in the Heebs case. They were all Jews. They were insulting no one. They were showing we are strong enough to turn that term around and be proud. I was proud to worth on the case and proud to work with the young Jews who ran the business. If a few old school Jews felt vulnerable, well, that's why they were old school. We walked proud and tall (well, as tall as Jews can get).
Isn't it odd how the left, which throws all its weight behind the Theory of Evolution, the essence of which is free competition for life, with only the fittest and/or the most adaptable able to survive--how they insist on controlling ideas and culture, wanting to prohibit anything from gaining traction that does not conform to their mold--unless it is something that suits their favor-of-the-day?
12
It's not odd at all. After coming to grips with eons of competition, much of it in the anguish of fang and claw, is it surprising that we want to limit the ways that people can further hurt each other?
Isn't it odd how the right embraces an infinitely good creator with one arm and embraces unrestricted freemarket capitalism with the other? Isn't the love of money supposed to be the root of all evil?
Isn't it odd how the right embraces an infinitely good creator with one arm and embraces unrestricted freemarket capitalism with the other? Isn't the love of money supposed to be the root of all evil?
7
Masterful use of Trumpian Logic. I suppose then that accepting the Law of Gravity means that one supports throwing people out of buildings.
10
How is this a 'left/liberal issue?
This portion of the Lanham Act dates back to 1949 and has been used to deny registration to marks that disparage a variety of groups: left, right, minority, majority, etc.
Would you feel that same way about marks that disparage the flag or veterans?
This portion of the Lanham Act dates back to 1949 and has been used to deny registration to marks that disparage a variety of groups: left, right, minority, majority, etc.
Would you feel that same way about marks that disparage the flag or veterans?
1
The law at issue in both cases denies federal trademark protection to messages that may disparage people, living or dead, along with “institutions, beliefs or national symbols.”
So, is the Dead Kennedys band's name now illegal?
So, is the Dead Kennedys band's name now illegal?
2
Nothing would ever make them more punk rock...
Do you really not get it Rodrian, or is this about letting everyone know you know who the Kennedys were? SCOTUS, the highest appellate court in the US, affirmed a lower (also appellate) court decision that the portion of 15 USC 1052 disallowing trademarks to offensively named entities, is unconstitutional.
2
Nope. Don't get it. Just answer my question yes or no? When it comes to trademark law I have no clues.
1
It took me several readings before I could "get it" regarding the rock band Slants! Progress or clueless?
1
I think there's nothing more offensive than those who take it upon themselves to be offended on the behalf of others. "Guilty white liberals" are easily the worst in this regard.
Take Eastern Michigan University whose teams' name was "The Hurons" (with a very respectful Indian chief in profile as the logo) until 1991. The Michigan Civil Liberties Union asked the school to change the name/logo despite the Huron Indian tribe, themselves, supporting the school!
Of course, the U. of M. has taken the mantle of thin-skinned PC hysteria among Michigan academic institutions since. There's little that doesn't offend those who attend that asylum.
Take Eastern Michigan University whose teams' name was "The Hurons" (with a very respectful Indian chief in profile as the logo) until 1991. The Michigan Civil Liberties Union asked the school to change the name/logo despite the Huron Indian tribe, themselves, supporting the school!
Of course, the U. of M. has taken the mantle of thin-skinned PC hysteria among Michigan academic institutions since. There's little that doesn't offend those who attend that asylum.
17
How about a team called the Oakland Confederacy our mascot could a guy named Cletus who wears suspenders and carries moonshine in a hug etc
3
"A law denying protection to disparaging trademarks, the court said, violated the First Amendment."
what is legal, and what is civil or proper or kind can be different. violence and inciting to violence are more serious issues than "disparaging" or "offensive" speech. and laws should be enforced and enforceable, so legality needs to have higher standards and greater seriousness.
it is not illegal to burp in public, but i do not recommend it. it might or might not be illegal to flash people depending on the context, but i generally do not recommend it either, unless of course, the viewers like it.
maybe if you ignore trolls, they will just be miserable in their own filth.
i think all of this logic applies to trademarks, but trademarks have their own set of laws (versus free speech and writing), so i need to consult a lawyer (or read the SC decision).
p.s. please forward article to mr. bill maher and other comedians. comedians in the tradition of george carlin might also be interested.
what is legal, and what is civil or proper or kind can be different. violence and inciting to violence are more serious issues than "disparaging" or "offensive" speech. and laws should be enforced and enforceable, so legality needs to have higher standards and greater seriousness.
it is not illegal to burp in public, but i do not recommend it. it might or might not be illegal to flash people depending on the context, but i generally do not recommend it either, unless of course, the viewers like it.
maybe if you ignore trolls, they will just be miserable in their own filth.
i think all of this logic applies to trademarks, but trademarks have their own set of laws (versus free speech and writing), so i need to consult a lawyer (or read the SC decision).
p.s. please forward article to mr. bill maher and other comedians. comedians in the tradition of george carlin might also be interested.
1
finally some common sense in DC. It's very simple..instead of FORCING your beliefs on others...persuade them with reason...if that doesn't work...move on. Don't patronize or associate with them. Why must liberals feel like they have to FORCE people to live or think or act a certain way? If you must FORCE someone else to think or act a certain way...then you are AGAINST PERSONAL FREEDOM not for it...how is that so hard to get?
20
I think it is also called a 'live and let live' attitude.
A ruling for reason. Of course those who push for political correctness such as the NYT's and those who frequent their comment sections are offended.
12
And I bet you are offended by Colin Kaepernick. Kathy Griffin. It works both ways.
1
Why is the Washington football team getting free publicity from the NYTimes when the case was brought by Asian-American musicians from the west coast?! I know this impacts the Washington football team, but did it ever occur to the Times to have a picture of the actual litigants?! I'm sure they'd have loved the publicity. Good to know the up-and-coming Asians aren't nearly as important as a white, billionaire football team owner.
24
Because the Redskins are in high profile litigation that turns on the case, whereas no one has ever heard or cares about the litigation. The Redskins are the actual news.
3
The Times wouldn't want you to get the impression that offensive speech is now acceptable.
1
This was a unanimous decision because the SCOTUS realized that we must keep the government out of the "we can control what you say" business which is the essential partner of "we can control what you think." I'm sure that many of the regular NYT liberals spent their youth protesting and perhaps still do, aren't they even embarrassed to be supporting government speech control, the foundation of tyranny? Obviously, for those opposing this ruling, they believe that freedom of speech only extends to those in tune with their personal philosophy; everyone else is an enemy to be silenced by any means possible.
95
Agreed, and I don't think I know a single person (almost all of my friends are those hated liberals of whom you speak) who disagrees with this judgement. I'm all in favor of protecting free speech to an extreme.
On the other hand, it also falls to us to eliminate blatant disregard for groups of all kinds, and that's what the Redskins name is. I don't think I can think of anything that is institutionalized in our culture that is more offensive than that. Well, the Confederate Battle flag (and equivalent monuments) was one, but most sensible people are finally addressing that.
So, you are ready to stand up for free speech. Great.
Are you also ready to stand up for doing other things that are right?
On the other hand, it also falls to us to eliminate blatant disregard for groups of all kinds, and that's what the Redskins name is. I don't think I can think of anything that is institutionalized in our culture that is more offensive than that. Well, the Confederate Battle flag (and equivalent monuments) was one, but most sensible people are finally addressing that.
So, you are ready to stand up for free speech. Great.
Are you also ready to stand up for doing other things that are right?
4
Actually, this very much keeping the government in the "we can control what you say" business. A trademark is a government-granted monopoly. What this ruling says is that the Washington NFL team can now sue me if I print and sell t-shirts with the "Redskins" name on it. If the SCOTUS had ruled the other way, the Washington team could still have called themselves the Redskins, but anyone else would have been free to use that name. You've got this backwards.
3
Oh, give me a break. The world isn't as black and white as you claim; the right side of the aisle has its own political correctness, about which it whines incessantly.
On that note, I look forward to saying "Happy Holidays" and writing "Xmas" without fear of retribution, and it will be grand.
On that note, I look forward to saying "Happy Holidays" and writing "Xmas" without fear of retribution, and it will be grand.
3
The only thing more eyeroll-worthy than political correctness itself are the people who pride themselves on being offensive and insensitive to others. So many commenters here seem incapable of celebrating free speech without inserting some snarky, condescending remark towards people who might take offense to certain words.
14
They're not taking a dig at the people hurt by those words because they're hurt by those words. Rather, it's because they insist they have a Constitutional right not to be hurt by those words, implying that anyone who were to use them would be committing a criminal act. It's a belief that I think for most of the country is so clearly at odds with the First Amendment that it's un-American.
It also undergirds the current social justice philosophy that so many people—including members of other marginalized groups and liberals sympathetic to their struggles—increasingly see as, in their words, "problematic." (Hopefully I didn't just "appropriate" their lingo.) When activists physically assault journalists, professors, and, yes, counter-protestors for (ironically) "making" them feel "afraid" in campus-wide "safe spaces," for failing to provide a "trigger warning" before broaching certain topics, for refusing to allow their subjective experience to dictate the parameters of debate, it is incumbent on the rest of us to take a stand and loudly object. Focusing on snarky asides totally misses the point.
It also undergirds the current social justice philosophy that so many people—including members of other marginalized groups and liberals sympathetic to their struggles—increasingly see as, in their words, "problematic." (Hopefully I didn't just "appropriate" their lingo.) When activists physically assault journalists, professors, and, yes, counter-protestors for (ironically) "making" them feel "afraid" in campus-wide "safe spaces," for failing to provide a "trigger warning" before broaching certain topics, for refusing to allow their subjective experience to dictate the parameters of debate, it is incumbent on the rest of us to take a stand and loudly object. Focusing on snarky asides totally misses the point.
1
Hmm...what exactly is a "disparaging" trademark?
6
Hail to the Redskins!!!
12
If it is truly the case that most Native Americans are offended by such terms
it would be gracious of the Washington "R..ds..ns" to change their name.
it would be gracious of the Washington "R..ds..ns" to change their name.
4
The problem is that most, like 90% of Native Americans either don't care, or have no problem with the "Redskins" name or NA Imagery. There even Reservation high school teams that use the "Redskins" name and the students are proud of it. The only people who seem to have had a problem with this are guilt-tripped, White Liberals.
2
Which is fine, but don't get offended, as many do, when a sports writer refuses to use the term Redskins in an article, just saying washington instead. you can use the name all you want. Other don't want to. Deal?
1
Language and the emotional content behind it changes with time and cultures.
Freedom of speech, short of that shouting fire in a crowded theater, is absolute and should never change.
As a lefty, the recent riots to prevent that jerk, forget his name, from speaking at Berkeley is an embarrassment.
A unanimous decision! What's next? Trump stops tweeting?
Freedom of speech, short of that shouting fire in a crowded theater, is absolute and should never change.
As a lefty, the recent riots to prevent that jerk, forget his name, from speaking at Berkeley is an embarrassment.
A unanimous decision! What's next? Trump stops tweeting?
16
Contrary to what some people in the media and else where love to present, there are a lot of unanimous decisions...not everything is a 5-4, conservative versus liberal split. But, then, acknowledging that would not comply with the orthodoxy.
4
I am shocked that such a ban was ever even considered. That it runs smack into the 1st Amendment is obvious.
26
Nice to see the SCOTUS unanimously defend the first amendment. Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. "Hurtful" speech is even more nebulous.
11
Times change. This portion of the Lanham Act dates back to 1946. I think the public in 1946 would have been shocked that people would even consider filing a disparaging TM. Incivility seems to be the mark of our age.
1
Excellent point. Think about the time, energy and money that went into this lawsuit and running it up the flag pole to the SCOTUS.
Many of us see people that spend their time and energy on stuff like that as the real threat to our nation. Take our culture, things that make people happy such as a fabulous football team and then tell everyone they're a bunch of racists for supporting the team.
The PC game is all about thought control.
Many of us see people that spend their time and energy on stuff like that as the real threat to our nation. Take our culture, things that make people happy such as a fabulous football team and then tell everyone they're a bunch of racists for supporting the team.
The PC game is all about thought control.
2
There can't be too many protections for free speech, even free speech that is obnoxious to many of us. Just because it's legal doesn't make all speech acceptable in polite society. We still have our (free speech) right to disagree and even shame those who use it. We don't have to make everything we disagree with against the law, though, which seems to be a recent trend.
125
There is no such thing as "polite society" any more. If you oppose someone's politics you can just drop a series of F-Bombs on them at any time and any place, rough them up, smash private property, block the public roads, and be a hero to your fellow goons without serious consequences. The term "Redskins" is tapioca pudding compared to what you're called these days and the threats you receive if you dare to publically oppose any sacred cow on any subject.
2
If the logo is offensive, people will not buy the product. Some logos will be removed for business reasons, not government censors. Others will be modified. Note: Aunt Jemima is a lot younger and slimmer today than in the past.
12
"...the First Amendment “protects even hurtful speech.”
Yes, the right of Americans, to include a President of The United States of America, to verbally abuse their fellow citizen in order to puff their pathetic egos or to gain financially by their disparagement is fully protected by our Constitution as interpreted by our Supreme Court.
So the onus is on the individual citizen to act in a adult manner and not disparage their fellow citizens, their fellow Americans. The same with the corporation, our now co-human partners (also as interpreted by our Supreme Court).
Thankfully, at least for the moment, I have a right to ignore, boycott, and otherwise refuse to deal with, or be around, individuals and corporations who use disparaging language and/or trademarks/marketing.
Which I can assure you I do as a rule, and I encourage you not to reward disparaging behavior brought by individuals or corporation either. It really is not that hard to do, one must just take the time to think things through a bit.
At least, that is, until Congress passes a law requiring citizens of the United States of America not to discriminate their personal consumption on the basis of what they find crass, base, vulgar, predatory, despicable, and on and on, as the vulgarity pool is a target rich environment in our nation and the monetary/marketing value of the vulgarity pool is huge...(so I guess I will be accused, in disparaging detail, of harming our nation's GDP)
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
Yes, the right of Americans, to include a President of The United States of America, to verbally abuse their fellow citizen in order to puff their pathetic egos or to gain financially by their disparagement is fully protected by our Constitution as interpreted by our Supreme Court.
So the onus is on the individual citizen to act in a adult manner and not disparage their fellow citizens, their fellow Americans. The same with the corporation, our now co-human partners (also as interpreted by our Supreme Court).
Thankfully, at least for the moment, I have a right to ignore, boycott, and otherwise refuse to deal with, or be around, individuals and corporations who use disparaging language and/or trademarks/marketing.
Which I can assure you I do as a rule, and I encourage you not to reward disparaging behavior brought by individuals or corporation either. It really is not that hard to do, one must just take the time to think things through a bit.
At least, that is, until Congress passes a law requiring citizens of the United States of America not to discriminate their personal consumption on the basis of what they find crass, base, vulgar, predatory, despicable, and on and on, as the vulgarity pool is a target rich environment in our nation and the monetary/marketing value of the vulgarity pool is huge...(so I guess I will be accused, in disparaging detail, of harming our nation's GDP)
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
3
What is disparaging is in the eyes of the beholder. It is not a cut and dried issue that you make it. What you seem to advocate is to disparage those who use terms you consider disparaging. That is the beauty of free speech, which you don't seem to be happy with. You have every right to disparage others, but at least be aware of what you are doing. Disparaging what you don't like is still disparagement.
Outlawing speech you don't like is not free speech.
Outlawing speech you don't like is not free speech.
1
Dear Gene:
I am not advocating outlawing free speech.
I am saying that there are, or should be, a body of civil discourse that is does not include disparagement, and I AM MOST DEFINITELY DISPARAGING THE LACK OF CIVIL DISCOURSE AND THE RISE OF DISPARAGEMENT AS AN ACCEPTED SOCIAL NORM.
As far as what you assume I may or may not be happy with, you Gene, are putting words in my mouth.
You can do that and that is fine as that is your expression of free speech, my expression of my free speech is it to call you on it.
My point is there must be civility in a civilization, or you have not got much, free speech or no.
My observation is we could do better as a civilization, as a society. And I point out in my comment that I will not support those who if feel disparage others. And, yes Gene, I have no cognitive dissonance whatsoever with my stand, be it disparaging those who disparage or no.
MB
I am not advocating outlawing free speech.
I am saying that there are, or should be, a body of civil discourse that is does not include disparagement, and I AM MOST DEFINITELY DISPARAGING THE LACK OF CIVIL DISCOURSE AND THE RISE OF DISPARAGEMENT AS AN ACCEPTED SOCIAL NORM.
As far as what you assume I may or may not be happy with, you Gene, are putting words in my mouth.
You can do that and that is fine as that is your expression of free speech, my expression of my free speech is it to call you on it.
My point is there must be civility in a civilization, or you have not got much, free speech or no.
My observation is we could do better as a civilization, as a society. And I point out in my comment that I will not support those who if feel disparage others. And, yes Gene, I have no cognitive dissonance whatsoever with my stand, be it disparaging those who disparage or no.
MB
1
Define civil in that context.
It was not by coincidence that the Founding Fathers made free speech the First Amendment.
24
Actually they didn't. It was the second. The first wasn't adopted. True story. So it's first by accident. Sorry.
How come Irish-Americans could care less about Notre Dame calling themselves the Fighting Irish?
13
Because Knute Rockne was Norwegian?
5
Maybe because they weren't also slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands, forcefully uprooted from their homes and forced to live on government designated reservations by the same white power structure that now employs stereotypes for entertainment value? I dunno.
(Though I do agree 100% with Court's expansive view of the First Amendment.)
(Though I do agree 100% with Court's expansive view of the First Amendment.)
8
Ed,
What the English did to the Irish compares to what happened
to Native Americans.
What the English did to the Irish compares to what happened
to Native Americans.
11
Well now.....this is refreshing ....at least our Justice system is working....
now then....let's see if we can get those who are funded by the one percent
can ...be representatives....of we the people...that is 99 percent of us...and
not the wealthy one percent of our population who they own their allegiance to
...oh the evil is Citizens United....like the friends of KOCH...et al..
Swamp Dwellers....I hope the Fourth Estate ....those who really are journalists
and worked say for ...the Yale News...yes I remember well..
Get CRACKING journalists and save this nation...because words matter..and
well written articles matter...and especially oratory matters..
NONE OF YOU SPEAK VERY WELL...not like WF Buckley....I remember...
Speak ....well....argue well....words matter when well spoken...
now then....let's see if we can get those who are funded by the one percent
can ...be representatives....of we the people...that is 99 percent of us...and
not the wealthy one percent of our population who they own their allegiance to
...oh the evil is Citizens United....like the friends of KOCH...et al..
Swamp Dwellers....I hope the Fourth Estate ....those who really are journalists
and worked say for ...the Yale News...yes I remember well..
Get CRACKING journalists and save this nation...because words matter..and
well written articles matter...and especially oratory matters..
NONE OF YOU SPEAK VERY WELL...not like WF Buckley....I remember...
Speak ....well....argue well....words matter when well spoken...
4
Social Issue more than a Constitutional Issue. Emotions and historic cultural conflicts between honest Americans can too easily cloud that distinction.
This liberal deep in the heart of Texas applauds this decision. If you don't like the name don't support the team. It is your choice. I suspect there are Native Americans who grew up supporting this team and probably still do.
I do not support the team. never have. I actually they are awful but that is my problem, not their. I grew up loving the Cowboys and hating their nemesis and the name may have influenced it but so does the rivalry.
This Swedish American has never been obsessed by the slang description of Swedes by referring to them as Silvertips because of the look of the blond hair on so many of their heads. I may not like the use of the term but if a hockey team from Minnesota were to be called that, for that reason, so be it. It is the owner's choice, not mine and certainly not the government's and especially the Federal government of the Untied States.
This liberal deep in the heart of Texas applauds this decision. If you don't like the name don't support the team. It is your choice. I suspect there are Native Americans who grew up supporting this team and probably still do.
I do not support the team. never have. I actually they are awful but that is my problem, not their. I grew up loving the Cowboys and hating their nemesis and the name may have influenced it but so does the rivalry.
This Swedish American has never been obsessed by the slang description of Swedes by referring to them as Silvertips because of the look of the blond hair on so many of their heads. I may not like the use of the term but if a hockey team from Minnesota were to be called that, for that reason, so be it. It is the owner's choice, not mine and certainly not the government's and especially the Federal government of the Untied States.
8
That's been true for years, as has been observed. "Trump" is my go-to example.
4
First you commit genocide against a people - then you insult them and hide behind free speech.
Whatever happened to just plain bad taste? I'm sorry, I forgot - it is 2017 America.
Whatever happened to just plain bad taste? I'm sorry, I forgot - it is 2017 America.
5
actually ask a native american about this.. 99.9% like the name.
13
The same pollster who said Hillary was a shoe-in.
4
I read the decision. I was offended. Not only because of its content but because it did not come with a trigger warning. I'm so tired of these micro aggressions.
2
Political correctnsess has no place in sports!
10
I might argue instead the government has no right to regulate political correctness.
Now if we can just get the NEw York EEOC laws knocked down that seem to put employers at risk if they don't use the correct personal pronoun.
Now if we can just get the NEw York EEOC laws knocked down that seem to put employers at risk if they don't use the correct personal pronoun.
4
Free Speech "rights" protect the right of some to slur others? Can we then look forward to seeing other ethnic groups and various others deliberately offended and insulted with more "cute" team names?
Think of some of the derisive or racist term for ethnic groups, or women, and then imagine all the team names that we can "look forward" to seeing? Most wouldn't be reprinted in the Times (and I'm glad for that!) but use your imagination and think of the sick possibilities... (The "N" word for one, various similar terms for other racial groups, one of the "C" words for a Chinese or a woman's teams, the "K" word for a Jewish-parody mascot, the old "F"word parodying gays, etc,etc,etc, ad nauseaum... (and really nauseaum!)
Do we REALLY have to go there in the interests of "free speech"?
Didn't the Court already (unanimously!) rule, in 1919, that the First Amendment does NOT protect "dangerous speech" (falsely shouting "fire" in a theater"), although it protects freedom of expression?
So why would a civil society want to allow inflammatory or pointedly racist speech to be protected? Or right, I forgot, the US has no interest in being a civil society, or a safe one, because the "rights" of zealots to disparage ethnic groups or to brandish guns anywhere and everywhere (even in schools) trump the rights of those of us who want live in peace, safety, and without insulting our fellow-citizens and others!
Think of some of the derisive or racist term for ethnic groups, or women, and then imagine all the team names that we can "look forward" to seeing? Most wouldn't be reprinted in the Times (and I'm glad for that!) but use your imagination and think of the sick possibilities... (The "N" word for one, various similar terms for other racial groups, one of the "C" words for a Chinese or a woman's teams, the "K" word for a Jewish-parody mascot, the old "F"word parodying gays, etc,etc,etc, ad nauseaum... (and really nauseaum!)
Do we REALLY have to go there in the interests of "free speech"?
Didn't the Court already (unanimously!) rule, in 1919, that the First Amendment does NOT protect "dangerous speech" (falsely shouting "fire" in a theater"), although it protects freedom of expression?
So why would a civil society want to allow inflammatory or pointedly racist speech to be protected? Or right, I forgot, the US has no interest in being a civil society, or a safe one, because the "rights" of zealots to disparage ethnic groups or to brandish guns anywhere and everywhere (even in schools) trump the rights of those of us who want live in peace, safety, and without insulting our fellow-citizens and others!
4
Freedom and safety are often at odds. Each nation makes its own decisions regarding the balance between those two values, generally reflecting how much each society trusts its citizens. In the United States of America, that choice almost always privileges Freedom over Safety. That can be uncomfortable.
3
The problem is that it's a slippery slope. As a gay man, I personally am not insulted by Dykes on Bikes, Queer Nation, or parties that use the word "fag" in them. Lots of other LGBT folks are insulted by these words. Myself, I find appropriating them takes the sting out. Who's to decide what's "inflammatory"?
5
Isn't there much bigger issues than this. Three cheers for the Redskins..."hip-hip hooray".... .......
5
Don't we have bigger issues than this?
If you're easily offended by words, then it may be best to go to a safe space.
If you're easily offended by words, then it may be best to go to a safe space.
30
Of course there are bigger issues, but words are important. Although I hadn't taken shelter in my safe space over this issue, it's comforting to me that our judicial branch continues to function for matters big and small despite the chaos in the executive branch. I would think you'd like the idea that SCOTUS is protecting the rights of conservatives to make us special snowflakes cry our liberal tears and run to our safe spaces with whatever the right's trite put down du jour happens to be.
3
Yes, we have bigger problems, but luckily we have the time and resources to deal with problems large and small - though not everyone has the patience.
Trademarks inhibit free speech by limiting who can have access to certain words and phrases. You may have noticed that the Redskins continue to use that name, even though their trademark was denied. If the Slants had lost their suit, it would only mean that they could not have prevented someone else from using that name, ironically or otherwise. I would say that the case was wrongly decided, but there's no mention of the reasoning in this story, except to say that it was divided.
1
You are incorrect .... both the REDSKINS and the SLANTS can not only continues using their name but they can stop others from doing so on goods or services that are the same or would be associated with those upon which they are using them. By being denied federal registration they merely lose certain procedural, jurisdictional and evidentiary advantages afforded by a federal registration.
1
The cartoon'ish depictions on ice cream sandwiches, (Eskimo) and punch drink, (Hawaiian) were eliminated because it was considered culturally improper.
Yet somehow the Lucky Charms guy is ok. So are the Irish all offended?
What about that Boston Celtic's logo of the pot bellied, pipe smoking guy?
Or the Irish Spring soap's stereo typing of all the dirty Irishmen?
Seriously, we have got to start focusing on the real problems in our country.
Yet somehow the Lucky Charms guy is ok. So are the Irish all offended?
What about that Boston Celtic's logo of the pot bellied, pipe smoking guy?
Or the Irish Spring soap's stereo typing of all the dirty Irishmen?
Seriously, we have got to start focusing on the real problems in our country.
54
Businesses will drop names when they can no longer make money with them. Period. The images you say were dropped were dropped because the companies thought they were hurting their bottom line, not because they suddenly saw the light. Profits uber alles!
Irish Spring soap commercials highlight only extremely clean Irishmen. And if you have ever been in the country in Ireland in the morning, you would know it feels clean and fresh and beautiful.
The only supposedly dirty Irishman ever banned by the government in this country was James Joyce, and Judge Woolsey's decision in the case against "Ulysses" ended that ban. Happy belated Bloomsday!
Irish Spring soap commercials highlight only extremely clean Irishmen. And if you have ever been in the country in Ireland in the morning, you would know it feels clean and fresh and beautiful.
The only supposedly dirty Irishman ever banned by the government in this country was James Joyce, and Judge Woolsey's decision in the case against "Ulysses" ended that ban. Happy belated Bloomsday!
is there a history of irish genocide in this country we don't know about?
Glad to hear of it. Tired of all the leftist whiners telling us that they don't like something and the rest of us should wring our hands in their grief. Hail to the Redskins! Hail, Victory!
17
You have totally missed the point of the decision. The Supreme Court did not endorse the use of the name, it merely said it was protected speech. In the case of the Redskins, if the team (corporation) wins its trademark battles, it will not be an endorsement of what is and always has been the mockery of a race or a stamp of approval of the use of that term.
1
all of them? ALL of them. I am a pretty lefty guy and do not exhibit such behavior.
The article mentions that depictions of cruelty to animals are protected. Yet, child pornography is NOT protected. This seems totally inconsistent.
4
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Society does need to decide what sorts of material it judges to be so egregious, so heinous, as to not be tolerated.
Child pornography is rightly prohibited. One can argue against animal cruelty using some similar arguments, but I would not agree that abuse of animals is equal to abuse of children in a rational ranking of depravity.
Child pornography is rightly prohibited. One can argue against animal cruelty using some similar arguments, but I would not agree that abuse of animals is equal to abuse of children in a rational ranking of depravity.
3
Actually, you both are probably wrong. The way the First Amendment is written, and considered logically, child pornography probably IS protected (as is cruelty to animals) though there exist federal and state laws that prohibit it, and they have not been struck down. In general, for about two hundred years the government flouted free expression rights, and only recently has the First Amendment been recognized as absolute (which it is), or close to it. The Constitution is not supposed to be Talmud where a handful of unelected judges make rules for the rest of us.
General pornography is free speech. Courts have held that the protection of child pornography as free speech is outweighed by the state's interest in protecting children, who among other things can't stand up for themselves or completely understand what is happening, such that "consent" is meaningless and damage to them is consequential. This seems very reasonable, and that's the standard today. Unfortunately, strictly speaking, the Constitution does not allow government to curtail expression, period. The First Amendment was written in such a way as to prevent government from picking and choosing what exact expression is allowed and what not, from fear of a slippery slope. My guess is nobody wants to make child pornography protected, so this dichotomy is here to stay, though properly handled its prohibition should probably be included in a constitutional amendment, which would easily pass.
General pornography is free speech. Courts have held that the protection of child pornography as free speech is outweighed by the state's interest in protecting children, who among other things can't stand up for themselves or completely understand what is happening, such that "consent" is meaningless and damage to them is consequential. This seems very reasonable, and that's the standard today. Unfortunately, strictly speaking, the Constitution does not allow government to curtail expression, period. The First Amendment was written in such a way as to prevent government from picking and choosing what exact expression is allowed and what not, from fear of a slippery slope. My guess is nobody wants to make child pornography protected, so this dichotomy is here to stay, though properly handled its prohibition should probably be included in a constitutional amendment, which would easily pass.
1
All of that is simply wrong. the court has held for about sixty years that obscenity, including pornography that is obscene, is not protected free speech. End of argument.
Using the courts to act as a public partner in behalf of all USAmerican persons as citzen equals is an indirect strategy to challenge present a constructed monopoly of influence of highly organized vested economic interests and ideological advocates is a flawed approach. Politicizing court decisions is a bad idea.
There are ways around the present blockage of effective federal governance that doesn't depend upon structural changes that do not get at the underlying factors affecting the production of consensus and consent. Incremental change that evolves out of better mediated opinion respects better the principle that says form follows function.
It is wrong headed to target the lobbying pressure of corporate entitities who act rationally to defend their survival and maximize their opportunity. In general, this practice has benefited most people, at least materially. Even ideological agents are acting within their rights to promote a point of view and lobby in its behalf. The problem is that those who are the best organized, such as these mentioned, have an undue advantage attributable to undeveloped means of idividual persons at a peer-to-peer level to network horozontally for collective uses of consensus arbitration. Old habits will crumble under the pressure of new means of networked peer-based action. Fight the impediments of verdical hierarchy, e.g., a peer strike against the "Redskins"— collective shaming.
There are ways around the present blockage of effective federal governance that doesn't depend upon structural changes that do not get at the underlying factors affecting the production of consensus and consent. Incremental change that evolves out of better mediated opinion respects better the principle that says form follows function.
It is wrong headed to target the lobbying pressure of corporate entitities who act rationally to defend their survival and maximize their opportunity. In general, this practice has benefited most people, at least materially. Even ideological agents are acting within their rights to promote a point of view and lobby in its behalf. The problem is that those who are the best organized, such as these mentioned, have an undue advantage attributable to undeveloped means of idividual persons at a peer-to-peer level to network horozontally for collective uses of consensus arbitration. Old habits will crumble under the pressure of new means of networked peer-based action. Fight the impediments of verdical hierarchy, e.g., a peer strike against the "Redskins"— collective shaming.
they also allow the trademark "NAACP"
"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People"
colored is just as offensive to many as redskins,slants and Squall.
There is many other terms that are offensive.
the line of what words and phrases should not be able to be trademarked
I think mostly falls where the first amendment can legally be limited, where words or phrases promote or encourage violence.
"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People"
colored is just as offensive to many as redskins,slants and Squall.
There is many other terms that are offensive.
the line of what words and phrases should not be able to be trademarked
I think mostly falls where the first amendment can legally be limited, where words or phrases promote or encourage violence.
3
When the Asian rock group the name "Slants," they are referring to themselves. "When the NAACP uses the work "Colored" in its name, they are referring to the race of most of their members and the persons they are supporting. When the corporate owners of a pro-football team use the word "Redskins" as their team name, I'd be surprised if any Native Americans are owners or players. These charged terms are only offenses within the context in which they are used.
89
The Redskins primary logo used today was first designed in 1971 in close consultation with Native American leaders. Among those who unanimously approved and voiced praise for the logo was Walter "Blackie" Wetzel, a former President of the National Congress of American Indians and Chairman of the Blackfeet Nation. Years earlier, Mr. Wetzel had been deeply involved with U.S. President John F. Kennedy in the movement for civil liberties, civil rights, and economic freedom for all. In 2014, Mr. Wetzel's son Don commented, “It needs to be said that an Indian from the State of Montana created the Redskins logo, and did it the right way. It represents the Red Nation, and it's something to be proud of.” copied and pasted but you got the idea
7
Polling has shown Native Americans either don't care or strongly support names depicting them. Look it up.
I agree with the decision. Free speech either is free or it isn't.
But what about "fighting words"? Or "crying fire" in a crowded room?
Per the Washington NFL team: I propose calling them simply the Skins. I've played on many a skins team (as well as plenty of shirts teams) without being deemed racially or culturally insensitive. The quality of play may have been insensitive to purist critics, but that's grist for another conversation...
But what about "fighting words"? Or "crying fire" in a crowded room?
Per the Washington NFL team: I propose calling them simply the Skins. I've played on many a skins team (as well as plenty of shirts teams) without being deemed racially or culturally insensitive. The quality of play may have been insensitive to purist critics, but that's grist for another conversation...
3
How do you equate calling a team Redskins with crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater?
4
The Slants clearly sit on the shoulders of the legendary Texas singer-songwriter Kinky Friedman who in 1971 fronted the band The Texas Jewboys. Their satirical lyrics and the band's distinctive name made the world a far more colorful place to live in.
46
I thought you were making this up, but this guy's stuff is on YouTube. The song titles are killing me. I'm afraid to click on. How have I lived this long without being aware of this?
Omg, he was on the Rolling Thunder Revue tour with Dylan??? How did I miss this? Have I been wasting my time with the Deftones?
Omg, he was on the Rolling Thunder Revue tour with Dylan??? How did I miss this? Have I been wasting my time with the Deftones?
First of all the two cases have nothing in common for a simple reason. The Slants are Asian (Americans) and they are using the term in an ironic way. The Redskins are not owned by Native Americans, so the comparison is absurd.
That said, the "Redskins" Should be shamed into changing the name not outlawed. Free speech is precious. Just make the war cries in their ears so loud they change the name by public pressure not government censorship.
That said, the "Redskins" Should be shamed into changing the name not outlawed. Free speech is precious. Just make the war cries in their ears so loud they change the name by public pressure not government censorship.
17
Agreed: Moral suasion would seem to be the right way to go in the case of the Redskins, if enough people care; not a Supreme Court ruling curtailing free expression.
What they have in common is the legal principle.
2
These two cases are very much related and the comparison is not at all absurd. Free speech should not protected based on who said it or what the relationship may or may not be to a would-be offended person. Free speech is to be protected at all times, coming from the mouths of anyone, even a multi-billionaire owner of a football team. You may not like it, but that is the very reason why we "protect" free speech. I never knew anyone happy with a statement who tried to suppress it.
There is a group of women musicians that named THEMSELVES "Pussy Riot" and no one seems too offended by that.
Not even the plastic-vagina costumed crowds with filthy signs across the country this January, so this Supreme Court ruling is welcome news.
Not even the plastic-vagina costumed crowds with filthy signs across the country this January, so this Supreme Court ruling is welcome news.
4
They are a Russian band.
1
PussyRiot is a Russian collective, by the way.
1
"...The decision was unanimous, but the justices were divided on the reasoning..."
___
Common sense the prevailing wisdom.
___
Common sense the prevailing wisdom.
6
If an NFL owner named his team "blackskins" or "whiteskins", I wonder if the Justices of the Supreme Court would have viewed it differently.
2
They shouldn't the point of law is not dependend on that issue.
3
Why would the Supreme Court have seen it differently?
4
Bottles: Nope.
2
"The Slants said they did not intend to disparage anyone. Instead, they said, they sought to adopt and reform a disparaging term about Asians, much as some gay people have embraced the term 'queer.' "
There is something to this argument; "queer" has been taken back by the gay community, just as the N-word has by the Black community, so why does the extension not apply to the Asian community? I'm Canadian and we have laws against hate speech here, so perhaps I'm not the best equipped to comment on this, but if it applies to one group, it's got to apply to another, no? BTW, I have met the Slants, and you could not find a nicer, more respectful, kinder bunch of young men anywhere. And they really rock: good sound, tight, and loud!
There is something to this argument; "queer" has been taken back by the gay community, just as the N-word has by the Black community, so why does the extension not apply to the Asian community? I'm Canadian and we have laws against hate speech here, so perhaps I'm not the best equipped to comment on this, but if it applies to one group, it's got to apply to another, no? BTW, I have met the Slants, and you could not find a nicer, more respectful, kinder bunch of young men anywhere. And they really rock: good sound, tight, and loud!
12
I agree! I have seen them play a couple times. Cool guys in a great band. Glad they won their case!
Another Great Decision by a full Court!
10
If the Redskins would simply change the graphic from a rendering of a native American to that of a redskin potato the problem would be solved.
9
Perfect for all the couch potatoes watching them on television
5
I hope the Supreme Court is as bullish on the First Amendment when Trump's attempts at restraining the press are litigated.
13
It all helps. That's the point of a common law system like ours.
1
It would appear from the comments here that the only people that believe this ruling is a good idea are those who historically have been at the top of society, i.e., those whose lives have been uneffected by descrimination and socio-economic segregation. Being lumped into a class of people labeled as inferior by society has never effected you negatively, so of course to you, a word is just a word. To the rest of us, women, blacks, asians, latinos, gays, transgendered, etc., a negative moniker puts us on unequal footing in American society (which is exactly the intended effect by most people using those words), effecting our education, job opportunities, and way of life. We're all supposed to be equal in America, right?
4
The case was brought by an Asian band that recognizes that real justice is pursued through cultural change, not censorship.
40
KIS: "To the rest of us, women, blacks, asians, latinos, gays, transgendered, etc., ..."
Who elected you to speak for "the rest of us"?
FYI, the members of the Slants are Asian-Americans. See the article and photo here:
Law on Disparaging Trademarks Gets Supreme Court Review
By ADAM LIPTAK
SEPT. 29, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/politics/supreme-court-trademarks-...
Who elected you to speak for "the rest of us"?
FYI, the members of the Slants are Asian-Americans. See the article and photo here:
Law on Disparaging Trademarks Gets Supreme Court Review
By ADAM LIPTAK
SEPT. 29, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/politics/supreme-court-trademarks-...
1
The redskins should keep the name and change their logo to a potato.
19
that is a genius solution. i love it!
2
So the United Daughters of the Confederacy can get their trademark back? Oh, they probably don't include free speech for Southerners. Maybe another 150 years....
guru: "So the United Daughters of the Confederacy can get their trademark back?"
Please cite a reliable source saying that the UDC lost its trademark.
Please cite a reliable source saying that the UDC lost its trademark.
1
More Urban Elite stupidity. Don't our politicians and Judges have better things to do with their time?
4
Judges don't get to pick and choose the nature of the conflict as long as there is a basis in law for there being one.
Do you get a gender color ethnic sectarian national origin First Amendment Trademark legal pass to disparage your own kind?
3
A longer, more complete article would have mentioned the reasons for the justices' divisions in supporting the unanimous decision, Including the history of trademarks and potentially offensive speech was interesting, however.
4
This is a clear win for the First Amendment.
15
"The decision was unanimous, but the justices were divided on the reasoning."
Okay, is it too much to ask for an analysis of why they were divided in their reasoning?
Okay, is it too much to ask for an analysis of why they were divided in their reasoning?
11
The decision is linked in the article. You can read it and have a complete understanding.
1
Best to read the opinions. Get it right from the horse's mouth.
1
I realize that and I am an attorney so I know how to read opinions. I am also very busy and would appreciate what I pay for, a brief analysis. It was the NYT hat implied that the different reasoning was important. I stand by my comment.
4
Even if you agree with a ban on offensive trademarks, how is such a thing enforced? By today's standards the NAACP has an offensive name (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). Even if the name is acceptable, what about the logo for athletic teams? Google "images logo" for Cleveland Indians to see what I mean. Come to think of it, "Indians" is not acceptable anymore for Native Americans, is it? If the team changes their logo to a picture of Gandhi they would be OK.
2
Actually, Mark, most Native Americans in the United States prefer to be called "American Indians" or the Indian tribe to which they belong: the Lakota Sioux, the Iroquois, the Seminole, and so on. See The Chicago Manual of Style 15th edition, Section 8.41, p. 325: "Many American Indians prefer "American Indians" to the more current term "Native Americans." Example: "It was about this time that [my mother] began to see herself as an Indian. That dim native heritage became a fascination and a cause for her." (N. Scott Momaday)
3
Mark: "... how is such a thing enforced?"
Someone files a petition with the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board seeking cancellation of the trademark. Google "Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc." for the case concerning the Washington Redskins.
Someone files a petition with the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board seeking cancellation of the trademark. Google "Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc." for the case concerning the Washington Redskins.
The justice must have their legal reasons to come to this conclusion. But then justice is not literal interpretation of the Constitution but its judicious application. There is nothing like unfettered freedom and that applies in this case too.
1
The court made the right decision. This is a societal issue, not a legal issue. There are many ways to respond to offensive language that don't require judicial involvement.
10
I'm offended by the wrongly related participle in the headline that conveys exactly the wrong message.
1
The ruling is that the government will allow the offensive name to be a trademark. If the ruling had gone the other way, couldn't anyone have freely used the offensive name? In that sense, the court has made limitations on free speech equally applicable to offensive names as it is to those that are not yet offensive.
It may very well still be legal to be indecent. We shouldn't however celebrate those who choose to exercise that right.
1
The Dead Kennedys band were once sued by the Kennedy family for defamation but they lost because apparently you can't defame a dead person.
8
you can defame a dead person, but there are no damages. only the dead person has the right to bring the lawsuit.
1
Here's the gist of it: No person or group has a right not to feel offended.
11
Glad to see the U.S. Supreme Court stop Obama era's political correctness-motivated "rules". U.S. Patent and Trademark Office not a political correctness enforcement agency.
16
Glad to see you support flag burning and the right of people to lie about military decorations. And clearly the UNDER GOD in the pledge has to go Stamp out political correctness.
2
'... Obama era's political correctness-motivated "rules".'
The case concerns a STATUTE of the US Code, not a "rule". Read the opinion. This is the statute:
15 U.S. Code § 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052
The case concerns a STATUTE of the US Code, not a "rule". Read the opinion. This is the statute:
15 U.S. Code § 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052
Change the name to "Americans."
Keep the colors, keep the logo. Everyone wins.
Keep the colors, keep the logo. Everyone wins.
3
Andrew Jackson would be proud :-(
1
As of right now, I do agree with the Justices' decision. However, I do think there is an important distinction to be made. The members of The Slants are Asian-American themselves. The owner of the Washington Redskins, however, is a white man enriching himself and his white family by aggressively protecting a slur name. It is worth noting that the Snyder family donated money to the Trump campaign. Just because their speech is protected doesn't mean it's not evil and offensive.
2
So decency is now not only old-fashioned, but borderline illegal to defend. For those who applaud this decision, withhold your judgement just a bit until the now open floodgates allow every vile, racist disgusting thought to become fodder for mainstream advertising, discussion and eventually deed. I'm no prude, but how will tomorrow's children process the society they are about to inherit?
3
As seen so often with modern day SCOTUS rulings, there will be unintended consequences. Expect white nationalists lining up realizing there's money to be made in the era of Trump.
This is great. I have never supported this argument against the Washington Redskins name. I see nothing wrong, nothing at all.
4
If N.W.A. can have their name, there should be no reason this band can't have theirs. People should be able to label themselves whatever they choose. I don't see how it's different than letting people legally change their name, and what business the government has in legislating that. The parallels between this and the redskins though is debatable.
3
Pressure NFL broadcasters to refer to the team as "Washington" instead of "Redskins". Even though the team is free to keep the name, by no means do commentators have to endorse it by saying the word. Saying "Washington" instead of "Redskins" tells the public that the word is an unacceptable slur, without infringing on anyone else's rights.
4
What next, pixelate the helmets, uniforms, and fans bearing anything you find offensive? How about not selling beer that is used in many acts, or, trucks that are used to kill people? Do we also censor "the pigskin" because pigs and PETA might find that offensive? How about the Hogs of yester-year, as hogs and Muslims might be offended? Do we ban the word "sic" because it might offend Sikhs? If you look with a microscope, I am sure you will find so much offensive you will make yourself blind.
7
Excellent post, Carlos. One tweak: Don't forget the Minnesota Golden Gophers... There's probably folks somewhere in the PC world gnashing their teeth over that one....
Except that "Redskin" is not merely offensive, but a direct slur. I can take offense at any word I want, but that doesn't make it a direct, on-its-face slur. Amazing how many people fail to recognize the difference.
Considering our current times and the aggressive campaign against any civility coming from the very top of our political structure, it should be apparent that no statement, phrase or label is off limits. This will be settled in the court of public opinion. If a team or group or product is identified with terms too ugly for most people, they will settle the issue by not buying or not participating. Or if the terms used are too noxious for some people, they will have their opportunity to organize the resistance to shame the rest of us into taking action.
Of course, that doesn't account for the continuing erosion of our collective standards as increasingly ugly language becomes commonplace. I guess we will just have to wait to see how that goes and if it ends up mattering. It wasn't long ago that f-bombs were never dropped in public by politicians. Now we have a president and a senator who feel free to use language straight out of Veep. It's supposed to conver authenticity, I guess. Authenticly what, I don't know.
Of course, that doesn't account for the continuing erosion of our collective standards as increasingly ugly language becomes commonplace. I guess we will just have to wait to see how that goes and if it ends up mattering. It wasn't long ago that f-bombs were never dropped in public by politicians. Now we have a president and a senator who feel free to use language straight out of Veep. It's supposed to conver authenticity, I guess. Authenticly what, I don't know.
9
One of my all time favorite names is that of a klezmer band, 'Jews with Horns'. It is beautifully ironic and wonderfully funny. I'm not Jewish; I just happen to love klezmer.
The trademark rules simply can't be applied rigidly, else an African American restaurant in the south might not be able to call itself something otherwise innocuous like say, 'Crackerbarrel'.
The trademark rules simply can't be applied rigidly, else an African American restaurant in the south might not be able to call itself something otherwise innocuous like say, 'Crackerbarrel'.
10
Klezmer is wonderful, and I have music by someone who calls himself Yid Vicious.
5
While traveling in eastern europe in 1995 I stole one of the Klezmatic's Jews with Horns posters from a telephone pole as a souvenir. I am not jewish and I don't feel one way or the other about klezmer, it was just funny in it's tongue-in cheek humor.
I do wonder what the SC would have decided if it were the N word instead of a slur to Native Americans....but I also support free speech and that includes letting the Washington Redskins and others of their ilk how offensive we find their names. Then, hit them in the pocketbook, where it hurts.
10
NWA
3
The "N" word is used millions of time in rap music. How do rappers and "artists" get away with it since it offends everyone?
4
Oh, no, that is politically correct because it is the proper group to use it.
I'm an American Indian :) and for one I think this is good.
33
Would have liked info in article on justice's reasoning.
26
How about click on the link and read the decision?
1
Read the decision, its attached to the article.
1
Just read the opinion. Google search or S Ct web site.
Pic any word and I will find a way to be offended by it.
49
Hummus
8
How dare you!
1
Think about those poor chick peas. Envision whirrled peas.
1
This ruling makes sense to me. I guess it'd be constitutional to have a band named The Nazis too, but that doesn't mean you should do it!
7
"Redskins": legal, OK, if the Supremes say so, but still...clearly offensive to the sensibilities of the offended. I would have great respect for the organization were they to voluntarily become the "Warriors" or (with the consent of Boston) "Braves". They could even keep the same logo.
38
How about if they change the logo to a red skin potato?
I wonder how the Bering Strait immigrants would feel about that?
(I think it's offensive to call them 'Native Americans' because they
didn't call the land 'America'. "Bering Strait" is safer because the name
has no national or political identity, it is the name of a geographical feature.
Lots of skullduggery afoot on this matter, is there ever an end in sight?
I wonder how the Bering Strait immigrants would feel about that?
(I think it's offensive to call them 'Native Americans' because they
didn't call the land 'America'. "Bering Strait" is safer because the name
has no national or political identity, it is the name of a geographical feature.
Lots of skullduggery afoot on this matter, is there ever an end in sight?
Most native Americans could care less about the use of the name Redskins. This is about the PC dictators telling us what "they" think is offensive.
1
Why not respect the history of the naming of this team.
The team name has been around for 81 years. Famous Indian leaders such as Sitting Bull, French Cow and Tecumsah considered themselves "Redskins and Red men".
The team originated out of reverence for the American Indian's traits of loyalty, respect, courage and honor.
Why is it that some want to deny the history?
The team name has been around for 81 years. Famous Indian leaders such as Sitting Bull, French Cow and Tecumsah considered themselves "Redskins and Red men".
The team originated out of reverence for the American Indian's traits of loyalty, respect, courage and honor.
Why is it that some want to deny the history?
This is bad news for those who insist upon censorship of words, phrases, and ideas that offend them. This may make it even more difficult for them to venture out of their trigger-free, gluteal-clenched campuses and into the world of people unlike themselves.
90
Liberal college students don't have a monopoly on thin skin, although they are a popular target. I've heard plenty of supposedly "anti-PC" conservatives get all in a twist and complain that government should mandate shop clerks say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," which seems ridiculous given that half the customers at my local Whole Foods are Jewish and half the cashiers are probably Buddhist or New Age.
1
The idea that government shouldn't have a role in facilitating profit schemes featuring derogatory content, seems like a reasonable First Amendment caveat to me.
2
Good - political correctness has gotten way out of hand. Why is "Jap" horrible, but "Brit" totally acceptable? And the Vancouver Canucks - is that OK?
We were well on our way to totally annihilating colorful speech, so this is a welcome ruling. At the rate we were going, before you knew it. we would not be able to call someone a "Yankee", and "Yankee Doodle Dandy" would have to be be banned.
We were well on our way to totally annihilating colorful speech, so this is a welcome ruling. At the rate we were going, before you knew it. we would not be able to call someone a "Yankee", and "Yankee Doodle Dandy" would have to be be banned.
61
It's not obvious why "Jap" is racist hate speech and "Brit" is fine?! The distinction is simple, "Jap" was used as an epithet to denigrate people for their race, and was a calculated part of systematic oppression. It's not offensive, it's racist. "Brit" disparages people for their stiff upper lip and bland food, but is more often a term of endearment. Canuck is always a term of endearment, because who hates Canadians?
2
I'm not sure why you are so certain, that "Jap" is racist hate speech.
Did you check to see if Chinese and Korean folks who are members of the Asian race, and were slaughtered by the Emperor Hirohito's Storm Troopers during WWII, use it? i notice that my Korean neighbors never seem to buy a Japanese car. Is that racism?
Maybe "Japs" is about extreme nationalism, and not about race?
And I'm sure you know that FDR used the term "Japs" during his wartime public speeches. Perhaps it is simply an abbreviation?
And while we are on the topic of extreme nationalism, is it OK to call German Storm Troopers Krauts?
Certainly, Kraut is about food preference, and not about race, since the British, French and Germans were all, in spite of the Der Fuehrer's nonsense, members of the same race.
And we could add some complexity by discussing "Yid" - is the term racist, anti-Semitic or perfectly OK?
But, of course, without free speech, we could not discuss any of these issues.
Nobody should be proud of self-censorship.
Did you check to see if Chinese and Korean folks who are members of the Asian race, and were slaughtered by the Emperor Hirohito's Storm Troopers during WWII, use it? i notice that my Korean neighbors never seem to buy a Japanese car. Is that racism?
Maybe "Japs" is about extreme nationalism, and not about race?
And I'm sure you know that FDR used the term "Japs" during his wartime public speeches. Perhaps it is simply an abbreviation?
And while we are on the topic of extreme nationalism, is it OK to call German Storm Troopers Krauts?
Certainly, Kraut is about food preference, and not about race, since the British, French and Germans were all, in spite of the Der Fuehrer's nonsense, members of the same race.
And we could add some complexity by discussing "Yid" - is the term racist, anti-Semitic or perfectly OK?
But, of course, without free speech, we could not discuss any of these issues.
Nobody should be proud of self-censorship.
3
The New York Times shouldn't be calling the verdict for the Washington appeal through photos and predictions in this article. Automatically applying one case to another without any context is a baseless argument.
9
freedom of speech? what do we mean by that. language can be abusive, hate speech, pornographic...in other words breach the boundaries of a moral sensibility. where do you draw the line? our government doesn't seem to get it although they seem to throw out religion when ever it conflicts w alt right values. we can use vulgarity to refer to transgenders but not to those slander them.
3
This is a misguided decision with dire consequences. There needs to be a distinction made between governmental sanctioned speech and free speech. The government can refuse to sanction speech but cannot forbid free speech. Awarding trademark status is sanctifying speech by giving it exclusive governmental protection. In effect the government is forming a legal partnership.
8
Not if all of the liberal justices voted for it. Remember, they are all highly educated and serious jurists, and not deplorables.
2
The first amendment does not protect your right to shout fire in a crowded theater (The example is based on the fact that theater fires were common and often killed many people when it was first used)it similarly does not protect you from using abusive demeaning racist language especially if you are a bunch of white men running a sport team whose name is a negative racial epithet for the Native people our forebears tried to exterminate from this continent.
2
... actually it does .
7
The point I failed to make is that shouting fire would cause panic. It was panic and the ensuing pandemonium that killed most of the people who died in theater fires, not the fire itself which is why shouting "fire" was used as an example of free speech that should not be allowed.
Whether or not any particular person is offended by the epithet has no standing.
Whether or not any particular person is offended by the epithet has no standing.
Well, according to the Supreme Court, it would appear that the First Amendment does in fact protect "abusive demeaning racist language" from government censorship. It is ideas that may be offensive to some or even the majority that the First Amendment was most especially designed to protect. Of course, the First Amendment does not protect a speaker from private actions, like boycott, companies pulling ads and sponsorship, etc. So have at it.
6
This was a decision directly affecting the name of a rock band, so why is there a photo of the helmets of the Washington Redskins? Just wondering.
15
Ummm. Because the decision has broader impacts and the "biggest" trademark denial that occurred is the Washington Redskins. What occurred here is known as journalism.
6
And I never heard of the band...guess their 15 minutes is up.
This article is all over the place.
Redskins is not a disparaging name.
90 Percent of American Indians have no objection.
To lump it in with the article is disingenuous and fake reporting.
90 Percent of American Indians have no objection.
To lump it in with the article is disingenuous and fake reporting.
37
As stated in the article, the Redskins currently have a trademark case in the courts. It is not "lumping it in" to mention it, but simply saying this decision will surely effect whether the Redskins case needs to go forward. That 90% of American Indians don't object has no relevance, since it was the copyright office who refused them.
1
It's precisely the same issue as to whether the Slants and the Redskins can register their name with the Federal Trademark Office without the Office rejecting the name because the name is allegedly offensive.
3
I feel it is appropriate to be sensitive to the feelings of others, but embedding political correctness in law should not happen. On the other hand, I'm not sure I could support copyrights of obscene names.
6
I do agree the the government shouldn't be focusing what is offensive. This means that it is up to the people to stop racist images. Vote with your dollars. Financial pressure is the best pressure.
38
Perhaps the law of the land, in an attempt to maintain a commitment to the First Amendment of the Constitution allows offensive names (and, I might add, hate groups such as Nazis and White Supremists) to abound, it is a sorry comment on our society that we have lost our moral commitment to decency, respect and concern for others.
2
It's a shame hate groups exist, but we need them to be allowed to speak. Why? Because the best thing in the world to combat hate is the light of day. Let them make fools out of themselves, let us see what nonsense they want to spew. Don't hide it away like they do in Germany. Let's see it and mock it and call it what it is publicly.
13
I agree...keep them visible in the public eye, but I still maintain we should not give them legal standing by legitimizing them through the court system.
It's been that way since the ACLU supported the Nazis' right to parade in Skokie, Ill., where a significant number of residents were holocaust survivors. I belong to the ACLU.
2
There are a lot of offensive names for teams, logos associated with them, and others. But I agree with the SCOTUS decision with a bit of a caviat. Just because this ruling says you can create an offensive trademark or keep an offensive trademark does not mean you should. We must appeal to decency and standards of self-respect for ourselves and others.
25
Nice top see a decision I can completely agree with.
9
This is another example of "rights" colliding with each other.
Which is stronger: the right of free speech or the right of a minority to be free from insult?
Normally I would say free speech is stronger, but this is different because the insult is government sanctioned - by issuing the trademark.
Not an easy call.
Still the Supreme Court was unanimous on this one.
Which is stronger: the right of free speech or the right of a minority to be free from insult?
Normally I would say free speech is stronger, but this is different because the insult is government sanctioned - by issuing the trademark.
Not an easy call.
Still the Supreme Court was unanimous on this one.
2
We don't have a right to be free from insult or offense. We do have a right of free speech which needs to be as close to absolute as possible to protect the liberties of all.
63
Is there a right of a minority to be free from insult? I don't see it.
9
There is no ''right of a minority to be free from insult''! Who exactly would define ''insult''? We thankfully have the right of free speech and it includes all sorts of
''offensive'' speech.
''offensive'' speech.
7
The Redskins are free to continue to use that word. And I am free to continue to have nothing to do with them, even though they're my home team, because they do.
272
Sounds like a win-win solution!
3
Have you never researched how the name became?
1
Led, what do you think would happen if you called reservation citizens "Redskin" to their faces? Hope your life insurance is paid-up -- you'll need it.
And why do the team's owner's corporate partners refuse to use "Redskins" in their advertising? They know the writing's on the wall?
Team owner Dan Snyder is embarrassing his family and his religion. Look at this in "The Onion" .. just devastating ..
http://www.theonion.com/article/redskins-kike-owner-refuses-to-change-te...
And why do the team's owner's corporate partners refuse to use "Redskins" in their advertising? They know the writing's on the wall?
Team owner Dan Snyder is embarrassing his family and his religion. Look at this in "The Onion" .. just devastating ..
http://www.theonion.com/article/redskins-kike-owner-refuses-to-change-te...
1
Yes! America is still great!
There is no need to "Make America Great Again." We are all stronger together, protecting the rights we've always had.
There is no need to "Make America Great Again." We are all stronger together, protecting the rights we've always had.
1
Now that the fake question of whether a disparaging name can be trademarked has been put to rest, the real question of should a disparaging name be trademarked can be addressed. None of the negativity surrounding the use of the name "Redskins" has gone away bc of this decision.
2
Fortunately, the negativity around the Redskins name has been limited to a narrow group of white, liberal social justice warriors who go around looking for things to find offensive. Most don't take them seriously and consider the entire Redskins brouhaha absurd.
2
I can see there are deep constitutional questions here, and goodness knows lawyers need the work and the Supreme Court needs a full docket, but from a cost control perspective, wouldn't it have been more efficient for the owners of the Washington Redskin to change their mascot to a potato?
4
The Washington NFL team may have the legal right to use an offensive name. That does not mean that it's the right thing to do. The team name is racist and needs to be changed.
I happen to have a significant number of Native American friends, colleagues and associates, and I've run this question past a lot of them, and the response has been unanimous: it's a racist name. Imagine any other disparaging word that was formerly used (or, regrettably, still is) to describe a racial, ethnic, national or religious group. Easy to think of a few, isn't it? Even easier to realize you'd never use them in polite conversation. The Washington team's owner should apply the same test.
I happen to have a significant number of Native American friends, colleagues and associates, and I've run this question past a lot of them, and the response has been unanimous: it's a racist name. Imagine any other disparaging word that was formerly used (or, regrettably, still is) to describe a racial, ethnic, national or religious group. Easy to think of a few, isn't it? Even easier to realize you'd never use them in polite conversation. The Washington team's owner should apply the same test.
56
Why do you think the Redskins team name is "racist"? I suggest it is only because you apply your own bias to its interpretation. It could just as easily be perceived as honorific--and, I suspect that was the intent at the beginning.
1
When the name issue came up a few years ago, one person (who happened to be Native American) interviewed for a news article asked a pertinent question: "In all those old Western movies we used to watch, when did you ever heard the word 'redskin' used in a nice way?" Seems like a pretty good, simple test to me.
1
Most studies have shown that Native Americans could care less about the use of the name Redskins and do not find it offensive.
If you want a more disparaging word, try the N-word, yet it is used extensively by the group that is offended by it.
If you want a more disparaging word, try the N-word, yet it is used extensively by the group that is offended by it.
2
David Sedaris suggested they keep the name and change the mascot to peanuts or potatoes. Love it.
172
This is a great victory for the First Amendment. Any attempts to stifle speech, even that considered disparaging or offensive, should be beaten back to protect the rights of all.
14
Wonder how the SCOTUS would rule if the Washington NFL team was named the Blackskins? Or the Nazi's. How far are they will to go? Guess with this ruling anyone can trademark anything, even one of the newly elected folks using one of his favorite words that begins with a "P".
5
There's always an option to boycott these racist corporations. If people cared they wouldn't show up to the stadium. We have a racist-in-chief and a racist cabinet in the White House. The fans lack the integrity to boycott anyway.
6
A good decision. The government should not be in the business of deciding what is "offensive."
299
Dear RPSmith99,
Right on!
But, be aware, you might start seeing more "swastikas" sprouting everywhere as they also, shudder, are "symbolic" of several American groups. Some would argue that if anyone find that "symbol" offensive then the groups displaying this Nazi symbol might claim the "Star of David' is offensive to them.
In that case, this particular "slippery slope" has just turned into one large cliff where everything offensive, wrong and violence inciting is just fine and dandy while compassion, empathy and decency fall to their deaths.
Right on!
But, be aware, you might start seeing more "swastikas" sprouting everywhere as they also, shudder, are "symbolic" of several American groups. Some would argue that if anyone find that "symbol" offensive then the groups displaying this Nazi symbol might claim the "Star of David' is offensive to them.
In that case, this particular "slippery slope" has just turned into one large cliff where everything offensive, wrong and violence inciting is just fine and dandy while compassion, empathy and decency fall to their deaths.
5
What about limits on indecent TV shows during children's hours and primetime? That's government limiting offensive content. Does this mean you're OK with porn on TV during Saturday morning cartoons?
4
Thomas.....We already have porn on TV at the same time as children's cartoons. Its on the porn channels. The Cartoon Network could air porn if they wanted to, but they would go out of business.
5
The Justices try to bring sanity to our perverted political correctness. On the other hand, extremists will run rampant. Extremism is about more than words. It's about hate in one's heart.
65
If you don't think words and rhetoric shape feelings and actions, you haven't been paying attention to all of human history, and you must not believe in demagoguery. Extremism is about more than words, but words can carry profound weight.
1
(to be clear, however, I completely agree with you that the outcome is correct. Words matter, but I'm adamantly opposed to a government in the business of policing them.)
3
Free speech strikes again!
75
How is there money in this? Astonishing.
1
A trademarked swastika doesn't make it any less appalling. The question of whether a hateful emblem can be trademarked is missing the entire point.
11
If it had been possible to trademark the swastika, the Navajos could have sued the Nazis for trademark infringement. It would have been a very interesting suit....
45
Well, it's a pity that the ancient Mycenaeans and Minoans didn't trademark the swastika, which they used as a design on pottery. One branch of my family even has little swastikas on a couple of very, very old Passover dishes.
But then, Nazis always did pervert whatever they took to heart. Ditto today's Nazis, and this strange, bloated man in the White House who has some as friends.
But then, Nazis always did pervert whatever they took to heart. Ditto today's Nazis, and this strange, bloated man in the White House who has some as friends.
14
Swastika is a Buddhist symbol. Haven't you ever been to Asia? There are swastikas all over the place, including on purses, t-shirts and tablecloths. I am a granddaughter of Holocaust survivors and I don't find it offensive.
14
Did the justices follow where their decision will eventually lead?
Crassness and crudeness are in their way.
It's the law of the "slippery slope" to new lows in language.
The only question is how fast this will happen.