MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Lennys Tap on June 18, 2014, 09:24:30 AM
-
Says a trademark should never been issued as "redskin" is by definition disparaging to Native Americans.
-
"The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent's services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2(a) prohibits registration of matter that disparages a substantial composite, which need not be a majority, of the referenced group. Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990."
-
"..... approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990."
Approximately?
-
Approximately?
lolz.
-
LOL.
Good to see Obama Administration doing their thing at the US Patent Office. Good to see Chuck Todd today say his presidency is over as his ratings are so bad, even rated as more incompetent than the previous clown which is saying something.
I'd like to see the data they came up with, or is it lost forever with hard drive crashes over at IRS US Patent Office. Seems the least we can expect from the most transparent administration in history.
Appeal coming....this will take years.
What's even greater is all the numbskulls that think this has a monetary impact. They should study up on the revenue sharing of the merchandise sales with the NFL. Drop in the bucket. Snyder could sell 0 items and he gets an equal share of the other 30 clubs merchandise sales since they all go into one bucket.
-
Again, *you* are the one that makes it political.
Every. Single. Time.
-
Again, *you* are the one that makes it political.
Every. Single. Time.
As if you don't think this ruling is political. LOL. How naive are you?
-
As if you don't think this ruling is political. LOL. How naive are you?
No kidding.
-
As if you don't think this ruling is political. LOL. How naive are you?
I didn't say it wasn't. But you are the one that (again) brought up politics.
Every. Single. Time.
-
lolz.
No kidding.
A US Gov't that can't get Health Care estimates within $900 billion correctly. Isn't sure if there are 8 million or 28 million illegal aliens in the country, can't manage to quantify how many $500 hammers are sold, but has that specificity on this item. It is absolutely laughable.
What's even better, in 1990 the total Native American population in this country was slightly over 2.3 million, not 1.8M and yet we are led to believe that the US Patent office someone was notified by 626K of them. LOL. More like extrapolation data.
-
I didn't say it wasn't. But you are the one that (again) brought up politics.
Every. Single. Time.
+1
Chicos, can you have two avatars, one with all of the political BS you spew, and one that just posts the actually constructive and informative stuff about MU, so I can block the first one?
Thanks.
-
No kidding.
A US Gov't that can't get Health Care estimates within $900 billion correctly. Isn't sure if there are 8 million or 28 million illegal aliens in the country, can't manage to quantify how many $500 hammers are sold, but has that specificity on this item. It is absolutely laughable.
What's even better, in 1990 the total Native American population in this country was slightly over 2.3 million, not 1.8M and yet we are led to believe that the US Patent office someone was notified by 626K of them. LOL. More like extrapolation data.
Actually in your zeal to make (YET MORE!!!!) political points, you would see that they survey data was provided by "the respondent." IOW, the Redskins.
So maybe you could stop deflecting with political talking points, and actually address the issues at hand.
-
so if the NFL can't stop bootleg Redskins memorabilia sales now, how much pressure will they put on Snyder for a change? every team will suffer some loss right?
-
As if you don't think this ruling is political. LOL. How naive are you?
Even though the case was filed in 2006. But okay, you are right.
And of course, the commissioner of trademarks, you would imagine is some kind of stooge of the administration.
http://www.uspto.gov/about/bios/cohn_bio.jsp
But wait, she was worked there since 1983, and in a leadership position for the past 8 years.
C'mon, do you literally fly off the handle at every article that comes out?
-
As if you don't think this ruling is political. LOL. How naive are you?
It happened in Washington. At a government agency. Of course it's political. But what does it have to do with Obama's approval rating, the IRS scandal or the transparency (or lack thereof) of his administration? Nothing. Just an excuse for another of your rants. Nice that you got all ecumenical and called Bush a clown as well. You're an equal opportunity hater - something to be very proud of.
You're an expert on everything that is wrong with your fellow citizens. Hypocrites all, democrats, republicans, independents. You proudly throw away your vote, strangely confusing nihilism with principal. Never served your country but an expert on what ails her. Hate the last half of the 20th century and all of the 21st? Fine, take all of that hate to some survivalist camp in Idaho or wherever - despite your constant diatribes to the contrary it's still a free country. Word of caution - very few "Look at Me" opportunities available in the back country, but on the bright side maybe you can finish your manifesto.
-
I'm just as critical about the politicization/polarization of gov't as the next wacko, but this decision was not influenced by the White House.
-
strangely confusing nihilism with principal.
Bakunin was the head of Chico's school or just a man without hope for the future??
-
No kidding.
A US Gov't that can't get Health Care estimates within $900 billion correctly. Isn't sure if there are 8 million or 28 million illegal aliens in the country, can't manage to quantify how many $500 hammers are sold, but has that specificity on this item. It is absolutely laughable.
What's even better, in 1990 the total Native American population in this country was slightly over 2.3 million, not 1.8M and yet we are led to believe that the US Patent office someone was notified by 626K of them. LOL. More like extrapolation data.
Umm, I wasn't agreeing with you. I was laughing at the "approximately" part since it gave an expressly specific number.
Change the name. It's flat out racist.
Also, stay on subject and stop using every issue to talk about all the other ones you wish you could here.
-
C'mon, do you literally fly off the handle at every article that comes out?
Yes. I'm shocked #Benghazi didn't come up.
-
Bakunin was the head of Chico's school or just a man without hope for the future??
Chico more of a survivalist (canned goods and ammo) than one ready to join the fray.
-
Here's Suzanne Harjo, she led the fight against the trademark. (She's a hero, the best and righteous)
http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-native-american-grandmother-who-just-beat-the-redskins-2014-6?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29
She's also the one demanding the Blackhawks change their name. (She's lame, stupid, doesn't get it and her opinion doesn't mean anything)
-
(canned goods and ammo)
Isn't there a Scooper with that as a screen name?
-
Yes. I'm shocked #Benghazi didn't come up.
Or that Rick Perry might move to California when his term as governor is up. I guess Cali is not that bad?
-
Here's Suzanne Harjo, she led the fight against the trademark. (She's a hero, the best and righteous)
http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-native-american-grandmother-who-just-beat-the-redskins-2014-6?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29
She's also the one demanding the Blackhawks change their name. (She's lame, stupid, doesn't get it and her opinion doesn't mean anything)
This isn't about hero, the best, righteous or lame, stupid and doesn't get it.
She has two opinions. I agree with one, disagree with the other.
If I agree with a staunch feminist on choice do I also have to agree with her to back partial birth abortion?
If I agree with an NRA member that the second amendment should be upheld do I also have agree with him that there should be no restrictions on automatic weapons?
You just can't be this obtuse.
-
Actually in your zeal to make (YET MORE!!!!) political points, you would see that they survey data was provided by "the respondent." IOW, the Redskins.
So maybe you could stop deflecting with political talking points, and actually address the issues at hand.
Sultan, love ya like a brother, but Lenny put out the bait, and I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing. I mean, he's never baited Chicos before, has he?
I'll attack it from another angle.
Doesn't anyone in DC have anything better to do?
Why doesn't the DC media force the pols to focus on issues of real importance?
-
Doesn't anyone in DC have anything better to do?
What do you want the people in the Patent Office to do? Balance the budget? Track down terrorists? Fix Obamacare?
They are doing what *we* asked them to do. They are doing their jobs.
-
Sultan, love ya like a brother, but Lenny put out the bait, and I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing. I mean, he's never baited Chicos before, has he?
I'll attack it from another angle.
Doesn't anyone in DC have anything better to do?
Why doesn't the DC media force the pols to focus on issues of real importance?
rara,
You make an excellent point.
-
Sultan, love ya like a brother, but Lenny put out the bait, and I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing. I mean, he's never baited Chicos before, has he?
I'll attack it from another angle.
Doesn't anyone in DC have anything better to do?
Why doesn't the DC media force the pols to focus on issues of real importance?
It is not the media's job to force political action. It is the media's job to cover political action.
-
What do you want the people in the Patent Office to do?
How about a cure for the common cold and a damn good ham sandwich?
Oh, uh, sorry 82...make that a damn good pastrami on rye!
-
This isn't about hero, the best, righteous or lame, stupid and doesn't get it.
She has two opinions. I agree with one, disagree with the other.
If I agree with a staunch feminist on choice do I also have to agree with her to back partial birth abortion?
If I agree with an NRA member that the second amendment should be upheld do I also have agree with him that there should be no restrictions on automatic weapons?
You just can't be this obtuse.
Come on Lenny - you need to watch the movie Pleasantville. There are no colors for some people - it is Black & White all the time for all issues.
If I am right, you HAVE to be wrong. Nuance, schmuance!
-
What do you want the people in the Patent Office to do? Balance the budget? Track down terrorists? Fix Obamacare?
They are doing what *we* asked them to do. They are doing their jobs.
OK Sultan,
You make an even better point.
-
What do you want the people in the Patent Office to do? Balance the budget? Track down terrorists? Fix Obamacare?
They are doing what *we* asked them to do. They are doing their jobs.
Not sure they are doing what *we* ask of them. I read about a huge backlog of patent application reviews a while back. Let's start there.
-
Not sure they are doing what *we* ask of them. I read about a huge backlog of patent application reviews a while back. Let's start there.
This case started almost 9 years ago!
-
Not sure they are doing what *we* ask of them. I read about a huge backlog of patent application reviews a while back. Let's start there.
Because we don't provide them with the resources needed to get their job done.
This case started almost 9 years ago!
Exactly.
-
This case started almost 9 years ago!
So while they are screwing around with the Redskins, the patent review backlog increases.
-
So while they are screwing around with the Redskins, the patent review backlog increases.
Well I'm sure they appreciate that you are willing to inform them what their priorities should be. Seriously, they probably have different offices that deal with different parts of their mission. The fact that it took nine years to resolve this likely means there are back ups throughout the entire Patent Office.
-
So while they are screwing around with the Redskins, the patent review backlog increases.
I just can't.
(http://betaself.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/frustration1.jpg)
-
Dumb decision PC gone mad.
-
Isn't there a Scooper with that as a screen name?
There is now...
-
There is now...
Well played
-
Doesn't anyone in DC have anything better to do?
Why doesn't the DC media force the pols to focus on issues of real importance?
Don't blame DC for the crap you all send us. Call it Washington. Or the Hill. But DC ≠ the Government.
-
Don't blame DC for the crap you all send us. Call it Washington. Or the Hill. But DC ≠ the Government.
Well, I'm from Great Falls so I know the District is many things...
-
Don't blame DC for the crap you all send us. Call it Washington. Or the Hill. But DC ≠ the Government.
Sorry for the generalization.
I attempted to lessen attacks on any one side, but that was a miserable failure too.
-
Sorry for the generalization.
I attempted to lessen attacks on any one side, but that was a miserable failure too.
The problem with DC isn't the VA side. It's all those folks in Maryland. They eat crab, you know.
-
I'm just as critical about the politicization/polarization of gov't as the next wacko, but this decision was not influenced by the White House.
not a smidgen...
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/05/obama-if-i-were-snyder-id-think-about-changing-redskins-name/
-
LOL.
Good to see Obama Administration doing their thing at the US Patent Office. Good to see Chuck Todd today say his presidency is over as his ratings are so bad, even rated as more incompetent than the previous clown which is saying something.
I'd like to see the data they came up with, or is it lost forever with hard drive crashes over at IRS US Patent Office. Seems the least we can expect from the most transparent administration in history.
Appeal coming....this will take years.
What's even greater is all the numbskulls that think this has a monetary impact. They should study up on the revenue sharing of the merchandise sales with the NFL. Drop in the bucket. Snyder could sell 0 items and he gets an equal share of the other 30 clubs merchandise sales since they all go into one bucket.
Yup! From Reids mouth to Obams's ear to bonuses at the Patent office.
-
Doesn't this just mean that anybody can name anything they want Redskins? What does this ruling do exactly?
Since all NFL teams share equally in the pot I don't see this as anything but a symbolic move.
-
The problem with DC isn't the VA side. It's all those folks in Maryland. They eat crab, you know.
I don't know why, but this made me burst out laughing for a solid minute. Well played sir
-
Doesn't this just mean that anybody can name anything they want Redskins? What does this ruling do exactly?
Since all NFL teams share equally in the pot I don't see this as anything but a symbolic move.
Primarily, it means that all of the "unlicensed" Redskins apparel with team name, logo, etc. is no longer "unlicensed" since it has no trademark for which to grant a license.
My understanding is that anyone can use and profit off of the Redskins' trademarks since they are tantamount to being in the public domain now. Check with an attorney first, though.
-
At the end of the day, I don't need or desire the gov't telling me what is or isn't offensive, especially when to many people (including the supposedly offended are not offended). The marketplace can decide this. If people find it offensive, most people won't buy it.
Let's take a look at what this United States Patent Office said WAS NOT OFFENSIVE just under this administration alone in the last 5 years. Tell me this decision on Redskins isn't political...what a crock.
Approved last year. DAGO SWAG. That's not offensive to Italians? Yet approved by PTO
Approved in 2012. UPPITY NEGRO. Not a typo, that was approved by PTO
Approved in 2011. MAMMY JAMIA'S. Wow. Apparently that's not offensive.
Or we can go on and on about terms that are not racial or ethnic, but someone finds problematic but not PTO. The list of sexual terms approved is endless. Doesn't bother me, but bothers some. "Big Pecker Brand" condoms was ok, so was "Cumbrella" (clever, I might add). Did you know that Russian Orthodox tried to ban the Apple logo because they believe it is a symbol of biting the forbidden apple? Look, I find that view absurd, but they found it offensive. Someone is always going to be offended.
I've had to deal with PTO in a side business my daughter and I started for diabetic clothing. It's patently absurd what they are doing on this. As much as I hate the Redskins football team, I hope like hell he fights for his right to let the market decide.
Best clip I saw was two nights ago. Two Native Americans, each with a tattoo off the Redskins logo saying (I'm paraphrasing) 'why do non Native Americans keep telling me what I should be offended by? Stop telling me what should bother me, I'm a man and I know. I love the Redskins'
Dan Snyder should put that in a video and interview many others that feel the same way and be done with it.
-
A few more that the Patent Office said weren't offensive, but Redskins is.
Cracka Azz Skateboards
Kraut Kap
Figgas over Niggas
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/18/12-trademarks-declared-less-offensive-than-redskins/
But don't let a crisis go to waste, especially with this administration.
-
At the end of the day, I don't the gov't telling me what is or isn't offensive. The marketplace can decide this. If people find it offensive, most people won't buy it.
Let's take a look at what this United States Patent Office said WAS NOT OFFENSIVE just under this administration alone in the last 5 years. Tell me this decision on Redskins isn't political...what a crock.
Approved last year. DAGO SWAG. That's not offensive to Italians? Yet approved by PTO
Approved in 2012. UPPITY NEGRO. Not a typo, that was approved by PTO
Approved in 2011. MAMMY JAMIA'S. Wow. Apparently that's not offensive.
Or we can go on and on about terms that are not racial or ethnic, but someone finds problematic but not PTO. The list of sexual terms approved is endless. Doesn't bother me, but bothers some. "Big Pecker Brand" condoms was ok, so was "Cumbrella" (clever, I might add). Did you know that Russian Orthodox tried to ban the Apple logo because they believe it is a symbol of biting the forbidden apple? Look, I find that view absurd, but they found it offensive. Someone is always going to be offended.
I've had to deal with PTO in a side business my daughter and I started for diabetic clothing. It's patently absurd what they are doing on this. As much as I hate the Redskins football team, I hope like hell he fights for his right to let the market decide.
Best clip I saw was two nights ago. Two Native Americans, each with a tattoo off the Redskins logo saying (I'm paraphrasing) 'why do non Native Americans keep telling me what I should be offended by? Stop telling me what should bother me, I'm a man and I know. I love the Redskins'
You must have failed logic class.
Non-Native Americans *aren't* telling him what to be offended by. Native Americans themselves have repeatedly, and in growing numbers, stated they are offended by it. It's not politics, it's not political correctness, it is right there in black and white. In surveys provided by the football team no less.
And if you have a problem with UPPITY NEGRO, file a complaint. Any one, or group can do so. Along the way, you should provide evidence that a significant number African Americans find the trademark offensive. And *nine years later* they may issue a ruling revoking the trademark.
I guess in the end, I am having trouble seeing your "point." If *some* approved trademarks *might* be offensive, then all offensive trademarks should be allowed??? That's just dumb.
-
Primarily, it means that all of the "unlicensed" Redskins apparel with team name, logo, etc. is no longer "unlicensed" since it has no trademark for which to grant a license.
My understanding is that anyone can use and profit off of the Redskins' trademarks since they are tantamount to being in the public domain now. Check with an attorney first, though.
Only after the appeal is completed, and they will likely win the appeal just like they did last time. Currently, their trademark is still protected during the appeals process before it goes to US District Court.
Even if they lose the appeal, they still have some protections in place. Ultimately, it's a drop in the bucket. The NFL shares revenue with 31 teams for merchandise. The Cowboys do not share. So say the Redskins sales drop by 10%, that's diluted over 31 teams, hardly any impact at all.
That being said, Snyder did trademark Washington Warriors 10 years ago.....but but but but but using the name Warriors when they have a Native American past is not right.
-
Approved last year. DAGO SWAG. That's not offensive to Italians? Yet approved by PTO
I'm a "Dago" (my big fat off-the-boat Italian on my mom's side) and I'm not offended. Someone was obviously trying to imitate the Jersey Shore and thought it was funny. Real simple, if you're offended don't shop there.
Now time for the Sean Connery line from The Untouchables, "Just like a Dago, bringing a knife to a gun fight."
-
I'm a "Dago" (my big fat off-the-boat Italian on my mom's side) and I'm not offended. Someone was obviously trying to imitate the Jersey Shore and thought it was funny. Real simple, if you're offended don't shop there.
Now time for the Sean Connery line from The Untouchables, "Just like a Dago, bringing a knife to a gun fight."
Yup, and I can find tons of Native Americans not offended by Redskin.
Thanks for proving my point. Just and I can find Italians that are offended by Dago. Again, exactly my point.
-
You must have failed logic class.
Non-Native Americans *aren't* telling him what to be offended by. Native Americans themselves have repeatedly, and in growing numbers, stated they are offended by it. It's not politics, it's not political correctness, it is right there in black and white. In surveys provided by the football team no less.
And if you have a problem with UPPITY NEGRO, file a complaint. Any one, or group can do so. Along the way, you should provide evidence that a significant number African Americans find the trademark offensive. And *nine years later* they may issue a ruling revoking the trademark.
I guess in the end, I am having trouble seeing your "point." If *some* approved trademarks *might* be offensive, then all offensive trademarks should be allowed??? That's just dumb.
I got an A in logic.
I think you are missing the point, big time. Yes, non native Americans ARE telling him what to be offended by. Or are you calling that Native American stupid and unable to make up his own mind about who is telling him what to do? Most of the outrage about the Redskins name, is from non Native Americans. That's the irony.
-
I think you are missing the point, big time. Yes, non native Americans ARE telling him what to be offended by. Or are you calling that Native American stupid and unable to make up his own mind about who is telling him what to do? Most of the outrage about the Redskins name, is from non Native Americans. That's the irony.
The surveys themselves say that a significant number of Native Americans are offended. So either you think those surveys are truthful...are wrong...or that poor, naive Natives have been told by non-Natives what to be offended by and have responded accordingly.
So which is it?
-
That being said, Snyder did trademark Washington Warriors 10 years ago.....
Should have changed the name then. To the extent that there would still be a controversy, I and millions of others who oppose the racial slur that serves as the present nickname would be on his/your side.
-
I was told on this very board by my good friend Lenny and others, that if the dictionary says it is offensive or a slur, then it is offensive. The gov't said the same thing.
da·go
[dey-goh]
noun, plural da·gos, da·goes. ( often initial capital letter ) Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.
a contemptuous term used to refer to a person of Italian or sometimes Spanish origin or descent.
Hmm. Weird, double standards again. Apparently the dictionary defense only works for some causes, but not others.
-
The surveys themselves say that a significant number of Native Americans are offended. So either you think those surveys are truthful...are wrong...or that poor, naive Natives have been told by non-Natives what to be offended by and have responded accordingly.
So which is it?
I do think SOME are offended, someone is always offended by something. That's never going to change.
Just as surveys show MOST are not offended. So which is it, those that are not offended are dumb or, ahem, "naive" because they don't share your world view or someone else's? Sure sounds like it.
Earlier you said growing number are offended...care to provide some facts around that? A scientific poll, etc?
-
I do think SOME are offended, someone is always offended by something. That's never going to change.
Just as surveys show MOST are not offended. So which is it, those that are not offended are dumb or, ahem, "naive" because they don't share your world view or someone else's? Sure sounds like it.
Earlier you said growing number are offended...care to provide some facts around that? A scientific poll, etc?
I said a significant number are offended....at least 30 percent in every poll provided by the football team. 30 percent isn't merely some. That's a lot. (And previous court rulings have specifically stated that a significant number, specifically *not* a majority, is the threshold that the Patent Office needs.)
As for growing opposition to the name:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/02/redskins-tout-new-poll-that-actually-shows-increasing-support-for-name-change/
-
I do think SOME are offended, someone is always offended by something. That's never going to change.
Just as surveys show MOST are not offended. So which is it, those that are not offended are dumb or, ahem, "naive" because they don't share your world view or someone else's? Sure sounds like it.
Earlier you said growing number are offended...care to provide some facts around that? A scientific poll, etc?
Keep defending that racist name...
-
Keep defending that racist name...
Godwin 2.0
I'm defending the right to have it, just as Native Americans are.
-
Keep defending that racist name...
Yeah, I guess I don't understand Chicos passionate defense of a name that 30% of Native Americans are offended by. Why would anyone find that appropriate?
-
I was told on this very board by my good friend Lenny and others, that if the dictionary says it is offensive or a slur, then it is offensive. The gov't said the same thing.
da·go
[dey-goh]
noun, plural da·gos, da·goes. ( often initial capital letter ) Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive.
a contemptuous term used to refer to a person of Italian or sometimes Spanish origin or descent.
Hmm. Weird, double standards again. Apparently the dictionary defense only works for some causes, but not others.
Of course Dago is a racial slur. By definition. Just like Redskin. That doesn't mean that every Italian (or even most Italians) have to be offended by it. Maybe a lot of them wouldn't give a crap. Does mean, though, that it's a bad idea for a school or professional team's nickname. Nobody would be dumb enough to suggest it. And if it somehow was a team's nickname, only a very few would join you in demanding that at least 50% of Italians be outraged by it in order to make a change. Common sense would demand it.
-
You know, has anyone EVER actually heard the term "Redskin" used as a put-down or to disparage a native American? We have two big casinos in CT run by Native Americans, and never once have I heard someone saying, "I lost my money to those stinkin' Redskins." I am in my early 50s and I can honestly say I have only really heard the term used in reference to the football team, potatoes or this stupid issue.
If you don't like it, stop going to/watching NFL games. You won't because it doesn't really bother you that much, does it?
I don't want the Government getting involved in issues like this. Snyder's personal property is just that, and it should be left to him.
Just as importantly, we have people who need to be safely extricated from Baghdad, unsafe bridges and roads all over the country, a troublesome ecomony, and an ever-shrinking middle class, etc. Any time wasted by our elected officials on the name of some guy's football team because it offends a small minority of a small minority of the population who are not meaningfully impacted by that team name other than having their feelings hurt would be much, much, much, much more well-spent addressing any of those issues. I know politicians waste our time on issues like this because it is low hanging fruit with no downside to supporting, but is it too much to ask that they spend time addressing real problems?
-
I got an A in logic.
That was a long time ago. Either you've forgotten a lot or your teacher was lousy. Or both.
-
Sultan, are these Native Americans
dumb stupid naive
Eunice Davidson, a Dakota Sioux. Davidson said that if she could speak to Dan Snyder, the Washington team owner who has vowed never to change the name, “I would say I stand with him . we don’t want our history to be forgotten.”
Tommy Yazzie, Navajo. “Society, they think it’s more derogatory because of the recent discussions,” Yazzie said. “In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you’ve got — your skin. I don’t see it as derogatory.”
Stephen Dodson, Aleut (Alaskan Native American). “ People are speaking for Native Americans that aren’t Native American. [I am] Irritated. Irritated is a polite term to say,” he said. “When you have people trying to represent our nation, you should be from our nation. Don’t represent our nation if you don’t even have an ounce of blood in you. My father was a Redskins fan. He and I had many battles and war parties in the house,” he said with a fond smile. “But to do the right thing is what he raised me to do, and he loved the Redskins. “It is [an honor], it’s a heritage. There’s a lot of respect in it. A great pinnacle part of who we are as a nation has to do with pride and honor. And the Redskin name is that,” he said. “That’s one of the things we use as honor and respect toward each other.
J. Barrett Crook, Cherokee. "If I thought for a second that the team name was offensive, I would no longer be a fan"
Arthur Dymond, Algonquin. "I am very proud of the name and the fight song. I do not find the name offensive or derogatory"
ETc, etc, etc.
Naive
-
Hopefully this Blackhawks fan understands the pain he is causing.
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-53a1c2f0/turbine/chi-blackhawks-name-hasnt-been-as-controversia-001/1024/1024x593)
-
Sultan, are these Native Americans dumb stupid naive
Eunice Davidson, a Dakota Sioux. Davidson said that if she could speak to Dan Snyder, the Washington team owner who has vowed never to change the name, “I would say I stand with him . we don’t want our history to be forgotten.”
Tommy Yazzie, Navajo. “Society, they think it’s more derogatory because of the recent discussions,” Yazzie said. “In its pure form, a lot of Native American men, you go into the sweat lodge with what you’ve got — your skin. I don’t see it as derogatory.”
Stephen Dodson, Aleut (Alaskan Native American). “ People are speaking for Native Americans that aren’t Native American. [I am] Irritated. Irritated is a polite term to say,” he said. “When you have people trying to represent our nation, you should be from our nation. Don’t represent our nation if you don’t even have an ounce of blood in you. My father was a Redskins fan. He and I had many battles and war parties in the house,” he said with a fond smile. “But to do the right thing is what he raised me to do, and he loved the Redskins. “It is [an honor], it’s a heritage. There’s a lot of respect in it. A great pinnacle part of who we are as a nation has to do with pride and honor. And the Redskin name is that,” he said. “That’s one of the things we use as honor and respect toward each other.
J. Barrett Crook, Cherokee. "If I thought for a second that the team name was offensive, I would no longer be a fan"
Arthur Dymond, Algonquin. "I am very proud of the name and the fight song. I do not find the name offensive or derogatory"
ETc, etc, etc.
Naive
Again, you are failing basic logic. Quoting five Native Americans, who may be perfectly fine with the phrase Redskin, doesn't negate the fact that a significant number of Native Americans aren't.
You are the absolute king of tortured logic and shifting goalposts.
-
You know, has anyone EVER actually heard the term "Redskin" used as a put-down or to disparage a native American? We have two big casinos in CT run by Native Americans, and never once have I heard someone saying, "I lost my money to those stinkin' Redskins." I am in my early 50s and I can honestly say I have only really heard the term used in reference to the football team, potatoes or this stupid issue.
If you don't like it, stop going to/watching NFL games. You won't because it doesn't really bother you that much, does it?
I don't want the Government getting involved in issues like this. Snyder's personal property is just that, and it should be left to him.
Just as importantly, we have people who need to be safely extricated from Baghdad, unsafe bridges and roads all over the country, a troublesome ecomony, and an ever-shrinking middle class, etc. Any time wasted by our elected officials on the name of some guy's football team because it offends a small minority of a small minority of the population who are not meaningfully impacted by that team name other than having their feelings hurt would be much, much, much, much more well-spent addressing any of those issues. I know politicians waste our time on issues like this because it is low hanging fruit with no downside to supporting, but is it too much to ask that they spend time addressing real problems?
Exactly.
So yesterday, San Diego reporter went up to the Oneida Nation casino and interviewed the Oneida Tribe. Found that 75% had no issue with the term Redskin. Imagine that.
And yes, they should be addressing real problems.
-
You know, has anyone EVER actually heard the term "Redskin" used as a put-down or to disparage a native American? We have two big casinos in CT run by Native Americans, and never once have I heard someone saying, "I lost my money to those stinkin' Redskins." I am in my early 50s and I can honestly say I have only really heard the term used in reference to the football team, potatoes or this stupid issue.
I'm a little older than you (65) and yes, I have heard the term Redskin used disparagingly - frequently in Westerns on both TV and in the movies. You stopped hearing it BECAUSE it was a racial slur. Only the football team in Washington remained as a remnant.
I don't want our government involved. I want our government less involved in this and many, many other areas. That said, I am offended by the stubbornness and the stupidity of people like Dan Snyder. I think he's a jerk and an anachronism who will remembered in a vein similar to Donald Sterling. Chico thinks he's a hero. I think a change will and should come and I'll do my best to persuade others. That's how this should be decided.
-
Yeah, I guess I don't understand Chicos passionate defense of a name that 30% of Native Americans are offended by. Why would anyone find that appropriate?
Because it is private property, the gov't has no role in this, and because most Native Americans are fine with it. That's why. Can't make it any clearer for you.
-
Again, you are failing basic logic. Quoting five Native Americans, who may be perfectly fine with the phrase Redskin, doesn't negate the fact that a significant number of Native Americans aren't.
You are the absolute king of tortured logic and shifting goalposts.
Why don't you just answer the question? Are they naive? That was your implication? I can post quotes from 500 if I felt like it. Are these people naive, that's what you said. Please tell us why your view of the world as a NON Native American is better and more qualified than theirs.
Talk about shifting goalposts, you can't even respond to your own statement.
-
I'm a little older than you (65) and yes, I have heard the term Redskin used disparagingly - frequently in Westerns on both TV and in the movies. You stopped hearing it BECAUSE it was a racial slur. Only the football team in Washington remained as a remnant.
I don't want our government involved. I want our government less involved in this and many, many other areas. That said, I am offended by the stubbornness and the stupidity of people like Dan Snyder. I think he's a jerk and an anachronism who will remembered in a vein similar to Donald Sterling. Chico thinks he's a hero. I think a change will and should come and I'll do my best to persuade others. That's how this should be decided.
Don't speak for me Lenny. I don't think he is a hero, my heroes are folks like my dad, my little girl, some folks in the military, etc.
Comparing Donald Sterling to Dan Snyder, please.
I think a change should not come, and neither do most Americans and neither do most Native Americans. That's how this should be decided, not by the gov't. This is a private property issue. Don't like it, don't buy tickets, don't watch the games. Most of all, stop being an epic hypocrite.
-
Why don't you just answer the question? Are they naive? That was your implication?
I never implied they were naive. Of course they aren't. They are freely able to form their own opinions about the word.
-
I never implied they were naive. Of course they aren't. They are freely able to form their own opinions about the word.
Perfect. We have common ground.
Next question, do their opinions count less than those that are offended?
-
Because it is private property, the gov't has no role in this, and because most Native Americans are fine with it. That's why. Can't make it any clearer for you.
Again, by law, "most" isn't the standard. And if you, and CTWarrior, believe that "government should have better things to do," go ahead and lobby Congress to change trademark law.
So I am a little perplexed why people have a problem with the Patent Office doing what the people asked them to do.
-
Perfect. We have common ground.
Next question, do their opinions count less than those that are offended?
Of course not.
-
Again, by law, "most" isn't the standard. And if you, and CTWarrior, believe that "government should have better things to do," go ahead and lobby Congress to change trademark law.
So I am a little perplexed why people have a problem with the Patent Office doing what the people asked them to do.
It's not about trademark law, it's the interpretation of it. It was a 3 voter panel, 2 to 1 was the vote. They couldn't even get consensus that it was any type of violation.
Perplexed? I just gave you example after example where the PTO said other items were not offensive. You posted only part of the regs the other day. The gov't response also said the dictionary defines Redskins as a slur. Dago is defined that way as well....does this mean PTO just took that day off and wasn't doing their job that day? Sorry, why are you questioning or stating perplexity when that is a perfect example. Both defined as slurs in a dictionary, one approved and one not. Interesting. Almost like non profit status is approved for some groups and not others, but those damn emails and hard drives can't be found any longer.
-
Again, by law, "most" isn't the standard. And if you, and CTWarrior, believe that "government should have better things to do," go ahead and lobby Congress to change trademark law.
So I am a little perplexed why people have a problem with the Patent Office doing what the people asked them to do.
I wasn't referring to the Patent Office, who were asked to make a ruling and did, but more to guys like Harry Reid and my local CT elected contingent who waste so much of their time and ours with their posturing on this issue, when it should be so far down their priority list that they never get to it.
In this country you get a lot of rights. The right to not be offended is not one of them.
-
It's not about trademark law, it's the interpretation of it. It was a 3 voter panel, 2 to 1 was the vote. They couldn't even get consensus that it was any type of violation.
Perplexed? I just gave you example after example where the PTO said other items were not offensive. You posted only part of the regs the other day. The gov't response also said the dictionary defines Redskins as a slur. Dago is defined that way as well....does this mean PTO just took that day off and wasn't doing their job that day? Sorry, why are you questioning or stating perplexity when that is a perfect example. Both defined as slurs in a dictionary, one approved and one not. Interesting. Almost like non profit status is approved for some groups and not others, but those damn emails and hard drives can't be found any longer.
Again...deflection. This issue has nothing to do with the IRS. So why did you bring it up again???
And as I have said with issues like DAGO or NEGRO...go ahead an file a complaint. Follow the same procedure that they followed with Redskins. The difference is that no one has filed such a complaint in those two cases.
The Patent Office doesn't simply look up a word in a dictionary to figure out if it's offensive you know.
-
Again...deflection. This issue has nothing to do with the IRS. So why did you bring it up again???
And as I have said with issues like DAGO or NEGRO...go ahead an file a complaint. Follow the same procedure that they followed with Redskins. The difference is that no one has filed such a complaint in those two cases.
The Patent Office doesn't simply look up a word in a dictionary to figure out if it's offensive you know.
It's an example of the same Administration (IRS, Patent Office, HHS, etc,) are part of Executive Branch and I'd like to know how much more incompetency we need to see from IRS and HHS just in the last 18 months. Pattern of incompetence, that's why. No deflection, part of gov't.
The gov't said the other day in their response, that dictionary definition was one of the sources it used to make its decision. Their words, not mine. Apparently when other trademarks show slurs, etc, per a dictionary, it doesn't matter. This was a 100% political decision.
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/patent-office-follows-law-studies-dictionaries-to-rule-on-trademarks/article_f5a403b4-8f07-5a86-93fc-de3993a5b3f9.html
-
My bad, I should have linked this article here and not the other thread.
Now we learn the Patent office did not receive a SINGLE complaint about the Redskins name.
Contrived outrage at its best.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/1/redskins-name-drew-no-public-complaints-patent-off/
-
Of course they buried the part where they say "there is no mechanism for input from the general public" and such input isn't part of their process.
Something is contrived here...and it isn't the outrage over the Redskins name.
-
Chicos is posting the same garbage in two threads hoping he won't get called out in at least one of them.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=40002.msg635282;topicseen#new
-
My bad, I should have linked this article here and not the other thread.
Now we learn the Patent office did not receive a SINGLE complaint about the Redskins name.
Contrived outrage at its best.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/1/redskins-name-drew-no-public-complaints-patent-off/
I'm not wading into this argument besides this point, because I find it a colossal waste of good energy. But you do realize that you are posting articles that directly contradict each other.
The SantafeNewMexican story indicating the use of dictionary's indicates this all started (the most recent time) with a petition to have the name reexamined and a resulting court case that took 9 years.
It also specifically mentions that the National Council of American Indians has been formally lobbying against the name since the 1960's.
So if the washington post article is to be believed at all it is a matter of semantics about what they deem a "complaint".
You are going out of your way on this one to create an agenda and there are far more interesting things out there to spend time on.
-
I've got a question... in the movie Hot Shots!, when the two paratroopers yell "Geronimo" as they jump out of the plane, was that offensive? Or was that made ok by Geronimo jumping out of the plane after them yelling, "meeeeeeeeee?"
-
I've got a question... in the movie Hot Shots!, when the two paratroopers yell "Geronimo" as they jump out of the plane, was that offensive? Or was that made ok by Geronimo jumping out of the plane after them yelling, "meeeeeeeeee?"
Now that's funny. Good one, Benny.
-
I'm not wading into this argument besides this point, because I find it a colossal waste of good energy. But you do realize that you are posting articles that directly contradict each other.
The SantafeNewMexican story indicating the use of dictionary's indicates this all started (the most recent time) with a petition to have the name reexamined and a resulting court case that took 9 years.
It also specifically mentions that the National Council of American Indians has been formally lobbying against the name since the 1960's.
So if the washington post article is to be believed at all it is a matter of semantics about what they deem a "complaint".
You are going out of your way on this one to create an agenda and there are far more interesting things out there to spend time on.
you are missing the elephant in the room or the forest through the trees or...if this, what's next??
-
If you don't think this was politically driven you are naïve. Papers out here report that there was never even one grievance filed with the USPO.
Let's create controversy to distract from the real crises.
-
I'm not wading into this argument besides this point, because I find it a colossal waste of good energy. But you do realize that you are posting articles that directly contradict each other.
The SantafeNewMexican story indicating the use of dictionary's indicates this all started (the most recent time) with a petition to have the name reexamined and a resulting court case that took 9 years.
It also specifically mentions that the National Council of American Indians has been formally lobbying against the name since the 1960's.
So if the washington post article is to be believed at all it is a matter of semantics about what they deem a "complaint".
You are going out of your way on this one to create an agenda and there are far more interesting things out there to spend time on.
yet you just spent time on it. LOL. Sorry, but there is a lot of stuff in the ComPost that doesn't see the light of day when it should. A FOIA was put forth and turned up zero complaints. Pretty simple. One wonders why the brilliance of the ComPOST didn't think to file a FOIA on the subject, but I guess it's a lot easier to simply take the word of those that believe in the same agenda they push.
-
I've got a question... in the movie Hot Shots!, when the two paratroopers yell "Geronimo" as they jump out of the plane, was that offensive? Or was that made ok by Geronimo jumping out of the plane after them yelling, "meeeeeeeeee?"
What about if they jumped out of a Apache helicopter and yelled Geronimo....then what?
Holy crap.
Considering the asshats out there that now want the military to change the names of the Blackhawk, Apache, etc, we may never know.
-
If you don't think this was politically driven you are naïve. Papers out here report that there was never even one grievance filed with the USPO.
Let's create controversy to distract from the real crises.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, if you are going to mindlessly mimic talking points at least see what has been written about this topic on this very board.
The Patent Office didn't get public complaints because they don't have a process to accept them as it isn't part of their decision making process.
-
Please, for the love of all that is holy, if you are going to mindlessly mimic talking points at least see what has been written about this topic on this very board.
The Patent Office didn't get public complaints because they don't have a process to accept them as it isn't part of their decision making process.
WRONG.
The Patent Office acknowledged it got public complaints AFTER the ruling...so now they are keeping track but weren't before? LOL.
Furthermore, the Patent Office has acknowledged receiving public complaints about OTHER trademarks in the past but approving them anyway.
I guess you want to keep believing that they don't have a "process" for this because someone said so, yet if that's the case how then do they know they got complaints AFTER their ruling and how did they acknowledge receiving complaints PRIOR on other trademarks.
Appreciate an answer of logic other than just, "well they don't have a process because some bureaucrat said so".
-
WRONG.
The Patent Office acknowledged it got public complaints AFTER the ruling...so now they are keeping track but weren't before? LOL.
Furthermore, the Patent Office has acknowledged receiving public complaints about OTHER trademarks in the past but approving them anyway.
I guess you want to keep believing that they don't have a "process" for this because someone said so, yet if that's the case how then do they know they got complaints AFTER their ruling and how did they acknowledge receiving complaints PRIOR on other trademarks.
Appreciate an answer of logic other than just, "well they don't have a process because some bureaucrat said so".
I don't have a horse in this race, but it's not hard to imagine that the patent office might receive a small handful of complaints each year sent to their general email or regular mailing address. The number was small enough that they didn't need a system to address them.
Now, with the public announcement of the nickname thing, more people are aware, and more people have been writing emails and letters.
Seems reasonable, right?
-
I don't have a horse in this race, but it's not hard to imagine that the patent office might receive a small handful of complaints each year sent to their general email or regular mailing address. The number was small enough that they didn't need a system to address them.
Now, with the public announcement of the nickname thing, more people are aware, and more people have been writing emails and letters.
Seems reasonable, right?
Of course, but it doesn't explain why they acknowledged receiving complaints over the years on other trademarks that were approved anyway (so you can eliminate the "more people are aware" excuse), which means they had a process or some mechanism to receive those complaints in the past, but didn't for this one? They recall the complaints they go for some random trademark, but this most offensive trademark that they claim 35% of Native Americans are impacted by the received none. Maybe they are on a broken or lost hard drive somewhere, lot of that going on lately.
-
Of course, but it doesn't explain why they acknowledged receiving complaints over the years on other trademarks that were approved anyway (so you can eliminate the "more people are aware" excuse), which means they had a process or some mechanism to receive those complaints in the past, but didn't for this one? They recall the complaints they go for some random trademark, but this most offensive trademark that they claim 35% of Native Americans are impacted by the received none. Maybe they are on a broken or lost hard drive somewhere, lot of that going on lately.
To be honest, I chalk that up more to broken government bureaucracy than politics.
A government agency that doesn't run efficiently? I'm shocked.
They could have a boxes and boxes of complaints that they don't know about and I wouldn't be surprised.
-
I've got a question... in the movie Hot Shots!, when the two paratroopers yell "Geronimo" as they jump out of the plane, was that offensive? Or was that made ok by Geronimo jumping out of the plane after them yelling, "meeeeeeeeee?"
You know, I went through jump training at Benning and Yuma and not once did I ever hear any one yell "Geronimo." And on operational jumps we were usually on oxygen and miked up so no one was yelling anything.
My first night HALO though I think I yelled, "SH1T!" as I egressed the aircraft.
-
WRONG.
The Patent Office acknowledged it got public complaints AFTER the ruling...so now they are keeping track but weren't before? LOL.
Furthermore, the Patent Office has acknowledged receiving public complaints about OTHER trademarks in the past but approving them anyway.
I guess you want to keep believing that they don't have a "process" for this because someone said so, yet if that's the case how then do they know they got complaints AFTER their ruling and how did they acknowledge receiving complaints PRIOR on other trademarks.
Appreciate an answer of logic other than just, "well they don't have a process because some bureaucrat said so".
The Patent Office doesn't get many complaints about their decisions because there isn't a process to accept them.
If that isn't acceptable to you, deal with it and keep mimicking. No problem.
-
Yes, her viewpoint should count, too. Allegedly.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/washington-redskins/
-
Yes, her viewpoint should count, too. Allegedly.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/washington-redskins/
Priceless.
By her reasoning, getting rid of the "N" word would erase African-Americans from American culture.
-
Time for the Redskins to get more offensive
By Matt Bai
Dear Dan Snyder:
I read with dismay the other day about the latest blow to your storied football franchise, the Washington Redskins. It seems you hired a liberal blogger named Ben Tribbett to defend the team against growing calls to change its controversial name, and this Tribbett quit the cause after just two weeks, citing personal attacks against him on Twitter and Facebook that distracted from the important business of protecting the Redskin tradition.
I have to tell you that this saddens me for our nation, Mr. Snyder. Who ever heard of a blogger turning down an actual paycheck? And if a guy can't turn to social media for reasoned, dispassionate debate without having it degenerate into name-calling and distortion, then, by God, where can he turn?
In any event, I am writing to respectfully offer myself up for the job. You need a strategy, Mr. Snyder, and I believe I can help.
Let me first be direct about this, one paleface to another: Your critics are winning. They turned you into the butt of jokes in March, after you wrote that open letter to "Redskins Nation" saying that you or your staff had visited no less than 26 Native American reservations on a sensitivity tour. They ruthlessly mocked your plan to pacify Native American resistance by doling out money and drinking water, even though I watched a lot of "F Troop" as a kid, and I'm pretty sure that's worked before.
Then you suffered another setback in the public relations war when the U.S. patent office canceled six of the team's patents, saying the name was offensive and shouldn't be afforded copyright protection. This means that anyone can now sell Redskins hats and T-shirts without even licensing the name, which would be a real problem, except that you and I both know that no kid really wants to buy merchandise from a perennial loser whose team colors are medical-waste red and jaundice yellow. It's like wearing the Ebola virus.
But make no mistake: This battle isn't over yet. Our country's oldest institutions don't change just because evolving social attitudes create popular pressure that can't be ignored. I mean, look at all that hoopla over gay marriage. It's not like anyone's jumping aboard that train all of a sudden, right?
No, what you need to do, Mr. Snyder, is go on the offensive, rather than simply being offensive. People always need some politically incorrect scapegoat, some cultural symbol they can kick around for being insufficiently sensitive. And if you don't want that symbol to be your Redskins, then you've got to give them some other piñata to poke at.
Other sports teams are a great place to start. Why should the Redskins get scalped when you've got all these other Native American mascots? Braves fans do so much ay-ay-aying in Atlanta that no buffalo would come within 200 miles of the place, and I don't see anybody there visiting reservations and handing out blankets. Granted, if you're Cleveland, you don't have a lot of good options for team names to replace the Indians. This is a city that calls its football team the Browns. Why isn't anybody offended by that?
And how about the Vancouver Canucks? We drove Ed Muskie out of the presidential race in 1972 just for allegedly using the word (he didn't), and here's an entire hockey team skating around wearing it on their jerseys, like a giant middle finger.
How do you think a certain segment of Somalis feels about the Pittsburgh Pirates or the Oakland Raiders? How about the two professional teams known as the Giants? For your information, coastal elites, gigantism is a serious condition, often accompanied by circulatory or skeletal problems. It's in Wikipedia.
And since we're on the subject, shouldn't the Los Angeles Lakers take a long look in the mirror? No, the name isn't culturally insensitive, but I'm just saying, it's offensively inane. There isn't a lake worth mentioning for a hundred miles around. That's like renaming Washington's team the "Statesmen."
But this isn't just about sports teams. The Redskins are an American icon, and there are plenty of other beloved icons in the culture that seem to get a free pass while you, sir, buckle under the burden of social progress. Take, for instance, Ronald McDonald, with his unkempt orange hair and big, bulbous clown nose. Is that supposed to be an Irish guy? And have you ever actually watched Super Mario Brothers? They make the Sopranos look like a training video for cultural sensitivity.
Then there's the much-loved story of a reindeer named Rudolph, who's going to ruin Christmas with his problematic nose, and who's sent away, in the movie versions, because he wants to date the coach's all-American daughter, so instead he leaves town with an aspiring dentist named Hermey. If that's not anti-Semitism, I really don't know what is.
We can at least buy you some time here if we tip the conversation in a different direction. And that's all you can really hope to get in the end: a little more time.
Because the thing is, Dan — can I call you Dan? — sooner or later, no matter how long you hold it off, you're likely going to have to change the name of this team, or maybe sell it to someone who will. That's not just because we've grown into a country that no longer considers it useful or polite to make emblems of people based on the pigment of their skin. It's also because your football franchise — unlike the Braves or the Blackhawks — just feels like one big nostalgia trip. You've so mismanaged it at this point that when people think of the Redskins, they think back to the glory days of the 1970s; the logo itself takes us back to the time of Archie Bunker and Phyllis Schlafly.
And no one wants to go back to those days of bigotry and bullying. We're a country that moves forward, if not always in a straight line.
So you might as well start thinking about a new name, something historically resonant and close enough to the original so you won't have to change too much. How about the "Washington Red Scare?" You think the Nationals have something going with that adorable Teddy Roosevelt mascot. Imagine how wild people will go when Joe McCarthy chases a bunch of Russians all over the field, under the logo of a wiretapped phone.
What could be more Washington than that.
-
Dan Snyder...winning the PR battle...
http://deadspin.com/wanted-native-art-with-redskins-logo-and-colors-drunk-1618686583
-
https://www.youtube.com/v/LT2b5kXFv-4#t=37
https://www.youtube.com/v/LaX6pUnI-hQ
https://www.youtube.com/v/M-c-RmrUBUg
https://www.youtube.com/v/2cleG4hLuuc
https://www.youtube.com/v/EA7wv7cmp8U
-
nm
-
Pathetic!!
-
FCC rejects petition
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/19/fcc-rejects-redskins-claim-and-the-argument-that-the-term-is-constitutionally-unprotected-hate-speech/
-
Confederate flag case cited in Redskins trademark battle
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13136383/confederate-flag-case-cited-washington-redskins-trademark-battle
A judge Tuesday heard arguments in U.S. District Court on a lawsuit filed by the team seeking to preserve its trademark registration for the Redskins name. Last year the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the team's trademark registration should be canceled on the grounds that it may be offensive to Native Americans.
U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, who will decide the case, asked lawyers at the start of the hearing to focus on how that Supreme Court case affects the Redskins' case.
Jeff Lopez, lawyer for the Native Americans, said their case has been boosted because the high court ruled that Texas was not infringing on the free speech rights of a Confederate heritage group by rejecting a special interest license plate design that shows the Confederate flag. Similarly, he argued, the federal government is not infringing on the Redskins' free speech rights just by denying them the protection of a federal trademark.
The Redskins' lawyer, Robert Raskopf, said the two cases are distinct because license plates are issued by the state, and forcing the state to print license plates with the Confederate flag is equivalent to forcing the government to adopt the Confederate group's appreciation for the flag. In contrast, he said, merely issuing a trademark registration does not require the government to take a position advocating the Redskins' viewpoint.
The team has argued in court papers that losing its trademark protections infringes upon its free speech rights. Lawyers for the Native Americans say the case has nothing to do with free speech. The Redskins are free to use the name even if they lose the trademark battle; they just lose some of the legal protections that go along with a registered trademark.
The Justice Department has also intervened in the case on the side of the Native Americans. The intervention was prompted by the team challenging the constitutionality of the law that requires trademark examiners to evaluate whether a trademark is disparaging.
Lee questioned the team on how exactly it would be harmed by losing the trademark registration.
"No one is going to forget the Redskins trademark or team if the registration is canceled," he said.
Raskopf countered that "trademark registration is a staple of brand management" in the modern era and that no corporation today would pursue a brand development strategy without a trademark registration.
Besides all the narrow legal questions, Lee also heard arguments on the fundamental substantive question in the case: whether the Redskins name is in fact offensive. More specifically, the judge must evaluate whether the name was offensive to Native Americans back in the 1970s and '80s, when the mark was last registered.
The team denies the name is offensive. It cites the fact high school and Little League teams on Indian reservations have used the Redskins name. It also says that, in a modern context, the name Redskins has essentially become synonymous with the football team and has its own positive association unrelated to the word's use as a description of Native Americans.
Lawyers for the Native Americans say there is a 40-year history of tribal leaders and activists objecting to the Redskins name. They also cite the dictionary: Many editions, though not all, have described the word as pejorative for many decades.
Lee will issue a written ruling at a later date. He can rule for either side or he can determine that the case should be decided at a formal bench trial later this year.
-
U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee,
Really?