US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

[26CornerBlitz]

It's wrong. The fact that people are offended is not a reason for the USPTO to step into it. It's a great reason for the NFL, the fans, etc to do so. No reason the USPTO should be pushing the issue.

 

How much do you understand about Patent and Trademark Law? Judging from this post, it's close to zero.

[OCinBuffalo]

The offended party decides what they're offended by.

Really.

 

Well, then by that standard: TBD, a clearly offended party, should be able to get the FCC to kick Mike Schopp and Chris Parker off the air. That's what's going on here: a government agency is being manipulated to do the will of some, based on nothing more than a value judgement, in direct contradiction of Free Speech.

[Campy]

Being offended is not good enough. Being offended does not give a person more rights than the average person.

 

Especially when the offended party cannot provide a shred of evidence that the offending party intends to offend, or sets circumstances that would detract from the well being of a particular people. And they in fact do the opposite.

 

Do you know what a straw man argument is?

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

Yankees.

Reds.

 

(Seriously...I'm not complaining about them, but they are classified as "derogatory" in the OED).

 

And then, of course, the Atlanta Thrashers were named for people who whipped slaves...

 

A thrasher is a mockingbird. Yankee was degrogatory during colonial times up until power and control was obtained. Reds is a color and are the oldest team in The League predating any communist connection... The 1950's were the craziest example of making something out of nothing... Red Legs because of the Red Scare? Huh?

 

Seriously. Yankees is probably the closest, but when have Native Americans gained wealth, power, and control as main players in society... That's why the term Yankee went from derogatory to being embraced.

Edited June 19, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois

[26CornerBlitz]

US Patent and Trademark Law. Some people are either willfully ignoring provisions of it or they're ignorant.

[OCinBuffalo]

Again, the USPTO didn't "step into it." They ruled on a legally filed claim, as is their obligation. They aren't "pushing" anything. They are simply doing their jobs.

The government's first job, and every government employee's first job, is to support and defend the Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees free speech.

Therefore, by limiting free speech in this way, the USPTO is doing the exact opposite of its job.

 

A Federal government agency is NOT to decide what speech is acceptable. If there is a party in another state that has been aggrieved by Redskins speech, then we have a vehicle for that: Federal lawsuit. And, when the Redskind inevitably appeal, and if that doesn't work, sue, to have their TMs restored, that will be their argument.

 

The USPTO will get blown out of the water in court, as they should. They have to know that. However, this entire exercise does cost Snyder $, and bad PR. I can see the angle...I detest it, but, I can see it.

 

It is inexcusable for any government entity to be involved in limiting free speech. They are supposed to be the guarantors of it.

Edited June 19, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[NoSaint]

I believe that "thoroughly disproven" is an overstatement and misrepresentative of Goddard's work. Certainly, his statements regarding scalps are in dispute, but that represents a small portion of his study, which includes well researched, and documented evidence of his history of the word. Be that as it may, by Goddard's account, regardless of the word's origin, the term had become disparaging by the early 1800s at the latest- predating the naming of the team by over 100 years.

 

It should also be understood that Redskin press releases have often been knowingly misleading regarding the origin of the team's name, as well as the attitudes of George Preston Marshall, and supposed support from Native American communities. In my mind, lying about your own organization's history in an attempt to seize some moral high ground excludes you from that high ground.

 

on that note -- ill again say this story is thoroughly amusing and take the time to link it this time:

 

http://deadspin.com/redskins-indian-chief-defender-not-a-chief-probably-590973565

 

 

and in a note i forgot and is a total side track from the fake chief story - some more redskins history including reference to complaints about the name in the 70s, 40 years ago

 

(The original version of "Hail to the Redskins" actually included a verse that contains what to the lay ear sure sounds like a shoo-in for the most racially offensive lyrics in the history of NFL fight songs: "Scalp 'em, swamp 'em! We will take 'em! Big score! / Read 'em, weep 'em! Touchdown! We want heap more!" Though stories differ on when the offensive lyric was removed, one account has team president Edward Bennett Williams ordering the song's scrubbing in the 1970s, during an earlier anti-name wave.)

Edited June 19, 2014 by NoSaint

[Rocky Landing]

The government's first job, and every government employee's first job, is to support and defend the Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees free speech.

Therefore, by limiting free speech in this way, the USPTO is doing the exact opposite of its job.

 

A Federal government agency is NOT to decide what speech is acceptable. If there is a party in another state that has been aggrieved by Redskins speech, then we have a vehicle for that: Federal lawsuit. And, when the Redskind inevitably appeal, and if that doesn't work, sue, to have their TMs restored, that will be their argument.

 

The USPTO will get blown out of the water in court, as they should. They have to know that. However, this entire exercise does cost Snyder $, and bad PR.

 

However, it is inexcusable for any government entity to be involved in limiting free speech. They are supposed to be the guarantors of it.

I'm speechless.

[26CornerBlitz]

I'm speechless.

 

He who yells loudest, longest, and in the most verbose fashion speaks the truth!

[Big Turk]

Why aren't people up in arms about the Cleveland Indians or Chicago Blackhawks? Both are obviously Native American related and have Native American logos...

 

Hell, why not throw in the Atlanta Braves and their Tomahawk Chop and the Florida Seminoles while we are at it with their horseback riding mascot in Native American garb? Kansas City Chiefs, San Diego State Aztecs, Utah Utes, Central Michigan Chippewas anyone?

 

Where does the line get drawn? Should Irish people get offended by the stereotypical "Drunk" leprechaun mascot of Notre Dames "Fighting Irish" who looks like he is squaring up for a bare knuckles bout in a bar after downing one too many pints of Guinness?

 

People being "offended" by everything these days is out of control. Get a life.

Edited June 19, 2014 by matter2003

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm speechless.

Well, basic civics class can be daunting for the uneducated.

 

But don't worry, I'm very good at teaching things like "how this country actually works", and "what is legal, vs. what pleases you today". I do it all the time.

[Beerball]

It's wrong. The fact that people are offended is not a reason for the USPTO to step into it. It's a great reason for the NFL, the fans, etc to do so. No reason the USPTO should be pushing the issue.

I get what you're saying, but, forget about trademarks. Reduce this to the lowest level.

 

Is it right for the Washington team to keep the nickname Redskins? There isn't a more simple question that can be asked.

[OCinBuffalo]

He who yells loudest, longest, and in the most verbose fashion speaks the truth!

Ahhh...another student.

 

Well, you may sit over there. Now, let's open our 11th grade social studies books, and turn to Chapter 2: The Bill of Rights. Later on, we're going to have time for you to discuss your term paper subjects. I suggest: In Defense of Porn: The Role of the ACLU in the 80s. Or, Unpopular Speech, and Why It Is Our Duty to Defend It.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Ahhh...another student.

 

Well, you may sit over there. Now, let's open our 11th grade social studies books, and turn to Chapter 2: The Bill of Rights. Later on, we're going to have time for you to discuss your term paper subjects. I suggest: In Defense of Porn: The Role of the ACLU in the 80s. Or, Unpopular Speech, and Why It Is Our Duty to Defend It.

 

Sorry, I have no interest in attending your clown college.

[Beerball]

Why aren't people up in arms about the Cleveland Indians or Chicago Blackhawks? Both are obviously Native American related and have Native American logos...

 

Hell, why not throw in the Atlanta Braves and their Tomahawk Chop and the Florida Seminoles while we are at it with their horseback riding mascot in Native American garb? Kansas City Chiefs, North Dakota Fighting Sioux, anyone?

 

Where does the line get drawn? Should Irish people get offended by the stereotypical "Drunk" leprechaun mascot of Notre Dames "Fighting Irish" who looks like he is squaring up for a bare knuckles bout in a bar after downing too many pints of Guinness?

 

People being "offended" by everything these days is out of control. Get a life.

The Fighting Sioux changed there nickname some time back I believe. IIRC they are now The Sioux.

 

Chief is not an offensive term.

Indian is not an offensive term though it is moving out of the mainstream.

Blackhawk is not an offensive term.

Brave is not an offensive term.

Seminole is not an offensive term.

 

The offense taken is not because the word is related to a Native American. The offense is taken because of what that word means to some of those people. If you do not see the difference then there's not much use in conversing with you on this subject.

 

If you do a bit of research you'll find that some of the teams you've mentioned above have conversed with local Native Americans about their nickname.

 

When a group of Irish people are offended by the Notre Dame logo and/or nickname then we'll talk about that.

 

 

What is right?

[Big Turk]

The Fighting Sioux changed there nickname some time back I believe. IIRC they are now The Sioux.

 

Chief is not an offensive term.

Indian is not an offensive term though it is moving out of the mainstream.

Blackhawk is not an offensive term.

Brave is not an offensive term.

Seminole is not an offensive term.

 

The offense taken is not because the word is related to a Native American. The offense is taken because of what that word means to some of those people. If you do not see the difference then there's not much use in conversing with you on this subject.

 

If you do a bit of research you'll find that some of the teams you've mentioned above have conversed with local Native Americans about their nickname.

 

When a group of Irish people are offended by the Notre Dame logo and/or nickname then we'll talk about that.

 

 

What is right?

 

I get the point, but how is "Indian" not considered derogatory?? It's a totally ignorant remark based on Columbus thinking he was in India and calling Native Americans Indians.

 

Should I be offended because I live in the North and there is a team called Yankees??

 

Maybe because I wear White Socks I should call Chicago and tell them I'm offended. Or maybe Boston because I don't like Red Socks and don't wear them.

 

Maybe because I go to church I should be offended by the San Diego Padres, with their missionary father logo...I mean Men of God don't have time for baseball...they are too busy drinking. Or maybe I'll call Wake Forest about their Demon Deacon nickname with their logo and its possessed eyes...

 

It's just out of control---if people had things to do with their lives they wouldn't need the false sense of importance in fighting over some "offensive" thing...if your that offended by it turn off the TV, don't go to the game and don't buy their products.

Edited June 19, 2014 by matter2003

[DC Tom]

If the National Congress of American Indians, which represents several hundred Native American Tribes, were to argue, for decades, that the term was offensive, and the foremost linguistic experts on the term were to contend that it is offensive, and Webster's Dictionary were to define it as offensive, I would say that the term has been decided to be offensive.

 

So would I, frankly...but those aren't the arguments that are being made. People are discussing a vague concept of "offense," and giving completely amorphous definitions of it within the context. Beerball's arguing that "people" have "stood together and complained," though all the people I've seen "stand together" and complained are almost universally NOT Native American (I really couldn't give a **** if Tim Graham decides to be offended on behalf of Native Americans he's probably never even talked to). You've got several people justifying "offense" on the completely salacious myth that it's a genocidal reference to scalp bounties. And Campy steps in and offers that the offended party decides "what they're offended by," which is nothing more than an artful and cowardly dodge of the actual question he was asked: who determines "Redskins" is offensive?

 

Not who determines they're offended by the word, but who determines the word itself carries the innate property of BEING offensive? How many "aggrieved parties" does it take before a word is deemed offensive? Campy implies one. Beerball implies a group much smaller than a plurality, and invokes an even vaguer notion of "what's right". Tim Graham implies it doesn't even matter, as long as someone thinks someone else should be offended. Judging by the USPTO's lack of action against other presumably offensive trademarks, they determine offensiveness strictly on how much media attention it gets. How do you actually determine the word is offensive? Until you manage to answer that question, most of this discussion is moot.

 

And before you do answer that question, remember that far more people are offended by "gay marriage" than are by "Redskins."

[Captain Caveman]

Ahhh...another student.

 

Well, you may sit over there. Now, let's open our 11th grade social studies books, and turn to Chapter 2: The Bill of Rights. Later on, we're going to have time for you to discuss your term paper subjects. I suggest: In Defense of Porn: The Role of the ACLU in the 80s. Or, Unpopular Speech, and Why It Is Our Duty to Defend It.

 

 

Where in the Bill of Rights does it mention profiting from the use of a racial slur? No one is limiting free speech here. The government is saying that if the Redskins want to profit from the use of a racial slur, they will not be protected under trademark law. Suggesting that free speech somehow transfers to trademark law is a wild jump.

[OCinBuffalo]

I get what you're saying, but, forget about trademarks. Reduce this to the lowest level.

 

Is it right for the Washington team to keep the nickname Redskins? There isn't a more simple question that can be asked.

No there isn't. And, of course the answer, for me, is: it's wrong. You know what? It's exactly as wrong as taking a Crucifix, dropping it in a glass of urine, taking a picture, calling that art, and taking Federal funds for that activity.

 

That's because my values say it's wrong to screw with people for no reason(although it can be funny). And, my mom taught me to be polite, and if I say something I don't realize is offensive to someone, to apologize, and not do it again.

 

But, those are my values. I don't claim the right to project them onto other people. Nor do I, immorally, claim that my values represent morals, or that I am the arbiter of morality. (Historically, we usually end up fighting wars, hot or cold, against these types of people)

 

There is no "right to not being offended" in this country. There is a "right to free expression". It is extremely serious, any time someone deems themselves the master of what is acceptable expression, and decides for the rest of us that it can't be seen or heard, for any reason, including it being offensive.

 

It's something that all of us have a duty to tenaciously fight against. Especially when we know the expression is "wrong".

[Rocky Landing]

Well, basic civics class can be daunting for the uneducated.

 

But don't worry, I'm very good at teaching things like "how this country actually works", and "what is legal, vs. what pleases you today". I do it all the time.

Please tell me this is parody.

[DC Tom]

A thrasher is a mockingbird. Yankee was degrogatory during colonial times up until power and control was obtained. Reds is a color and are the oldest team in The League predating any communist connection... The 1950's were the craziest example of making something out of nothing... Red Legs because of the Red Scare? Huh?

 

Seriously. Yankees is probably the closest, but when have Native Americans gained wealth, power, and control as main players in society... That's why the term Yankee went from derogatory to being embraced.

 

"Yankee" is a current derogatory term for Americans in general. "Thrashers" I threw out there just to demonstrate how easy it is to make bull **** connections along the lines of "'Redskins' refers to Indian scalps" based on nothing more than superficial, ahistorical impressions.

 

And none of that is even remotely relevant to what THE DICTIONARY defines as derogatory, which is the measure you specified. And I was extremely conservative in identifying "offensive" team names - I could have added a half-dozen others easily, but they weren't explicitly defined as "offensive" or "derogatory" by the Oxford English Dictionary.

 

Basically, I wasn't saying those words were offensive. I was pointing out that your metric for "offensive" is nonsense.

 

Please tell me this is parody.

 

No, it's actually rather subdued by his usual standards. Stop by PPP and read some of his stuff.

[OCinBuffalo]

Where in the Bill of Rights does it mention profiting from the use of a racial slur? No one is limiting free speech here. The government is saying that if the Redskins want to profit from the use of a racial slur, they will not be protected under trademark law. Suggesting that free speech somehow transfers to trademark law is a wild jump.

Then you don't understand the concept of free expression at all.

 

There is no jump. Free Speech means Free Speech.

 

Free speech doesn't mean:

 

1. Free Speech When Convenient, because it doesn't make me make hard choices, or have to tolerate something I find disgusting.

2. Free Speech When I Agree, because it fits my world view.

3. Free Speech When I Am Offended, because my sensibilities trump "lesser people"'s rights.

 

No. Free Speech means all speech, free, for better or worse(unless it causes imminent danger, such as yelling "Fire" in a theater).

[Big Turk]

 

Then you don't understand the concept of free exp<b></b>ression at all.

 

There is no jump. Free Speech means Free Speech.

 

Free speech doesn't mean:

 

1. Free Speech When Convenient, because it doesn't make me make hard choices, or have to tolerate something I find disgusting.

2. Free Speech When I Agree, because it fits my world view.

3. Free Speech When I Am Offended, because my sensibilities trump "lesser people"'s rights.

 

No. Free Speech means all speech, free, for better or worse(unless it causes imminent danger, such as yelling "Fire" in a theater).

 

Probably the same place it says Police have to protect KKK rallies when a lot of them probably want to beat the hell out of them.

[DC Tom]

Then you don't understand the concept of free expression at all.

 

There is no jump. Free Speech means Free Speech.

 

Free speech doesn't mean:

 

1. Free Speech When Convenient, because it doesn't make me make hard choices, or have to tolerate something I find disgusting.

2. Free Speech When I Agree, because it fits my world view.

3. Free Speech When I Am Offended, because my sensibilities trump "lesser people"'s rights.

 

No. Free Speech means all speech, free, for better or worse(unless it causes imminent danger, such as yelling "Fire" in a theater).

 

And Snyder is still free to use "Redskins" as a team name. The USPTO didn't say he can't...just that he can't own exclusive rights to it.

 

I think the USPTO's decision is wrong because it's pandering and capricious (again, look at all the slurs they haven't withdrawn the trademark on). I don't think they're wrong because they're infringing Snyder's free speech rights.

[Captain Caveman]

Then you don't understand the concept of free expression at all.

 

There is no jump. Free Speech means Free Speech.

 

Free speech doesn't mean:

 

1. Free Speech When Convenient, because it doesn't make me make hard choices, or have to tolerate something I find disgusting.

2. Free Speech When I Agree, because it fits my world view.

3. Free Speech When I Am Offended, because my sensibilities trump "lesser people"'s rights.

 

No. Free Speech means all speech, free, for better or worse(unless it causes imminent danger, such as yelling "Fire" in a theater).

 

Seems like you didn't read what I wrote, because your response completely ignores my basic point, and touches on several subjects which are not at all related.

 

There is no limitation of free speech. There is no court ruling saying that the Redskins can't use the name. Speech is not limited. Trade and commerce are regulated by the government, and have been since day 1. And the government is not even saying that the Redskins can't profit from the name, only that they can't claim sole ownership of said name.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Captain Caveman

[26CornerBlitz]

Then you don't understand the concept of free expression at all.

 

There is no jump. Free Speech means Free Speech.

 

Free speech doesn't mean:

 

1. Free Speech When Convenient, because it doesn't make me make hard choices, or have to tolerate something I find disgusting.

2. Free Speech When I Agree, because it fits my world view.

3. Free Speech When I Am Offended, because my sensibilities trump "lesser people"'s rights.

 

No. Free Speech means all speech, free, for better or worse(unless it causes imminent danger, such as yelling "Fire" in a theater).

 

Irrespective of Trademark protection, Daniel Snyder is free to keep the name of his NFL Franchise as the Washington Redskins in perpetuity. What do you not understand Mr Free Speech? This case/grievance is not about free speech.

[Big Turk]

I find it interesting on one hand Native Americans have their own land, judicial system, school system, laws, etc where the government has no say, no power, no right to collect taxes, and cannot even set foot on their property in a law enforcing manner and yet from these places they want to say what is allowable for us to use.

 

You are in your own country of your own choosing aren't you? Why do you care what we do in ours?

Edited June 19, 2014 by matter2003

[OCinBuffalo]

Sorry, I have no interest in attending your clown college.

Well you better get some schooling someplace.

 

I can't believe this is even a question. It's literally ridiculous in terms of law. This goes to the SCOTUS, the USPTO loses in a 9-0 blowout. Period. It's a waste of time really. None of you arguing for USPTO's ability to vacate these trademarks....would get past traffic court with this argument.

 

No government agency has the right to limit a Constitution freedom, based on anything, never mind a minority of a minority calling something offensive. That can only be done by law. Law, and SCOTUS upholding said law as Constitutional.

 

"We all know what Free Speech means" apparently is no longer a viable assumption. Yeah Public Education!

 

But, this is WHY we need a SCOTUS....to save us from a Tyranny of the Ignorant.

 

Seems like you didn't read what I wrote, because your response completely ignores my basic point, and touches on several subjects which are not at all related.

 

There is no limitation of free speech. There is no court ruling saying that the Redskins can't use the name. Speech is not limited. Trade and commerce are regulated by the government, and have been since day 1. And the government is not even saying that the Redskins can't profit from the name, only that they can't claim sole ownership of said name.

See, again I have to correct you. Again, we start our 11th grade history class.

 

Trade and commerce are regulated by.....CONGRESS. Not "government". It's called the Commerce Clause. It's in the Constitution. There will be homework, and a quiz on this, I guarantee you. ;

 

IF Congress passes a law, that vacates the patents of the Redskins. So be it.

 

The USPTO has no power to suddenly make laws on its own.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

How it lasted this long is beyond me. What other team uses an official slur as defined by the standard dictionary? Now, there were images and logos that were looked upon as slurs & charactures. Chief Wahoo comes to mind, hasn't that been changed?

 

They're slowly but surely moving away from him. The brought in an alternate logo a few years ago, that was just the letter C. This year they made that that the official logo, only wearing a small patch on their sleave, and a hat on alternate days.

[Rocky Landing]

Then you don't understand the concept of free expression at all.

 

There is no jump. Free Speech means Free Speech.

 

Free speech doesn't mean:

 

1. Free Speech When Convenient, because it doesn't make me make hard choices, or have to tolerate something I find disgusting.

2. Free Speech When I Agree, because it fits my world view.

3. Free Speech When I Am Offended, because my sensibilities trump "lesser people"'s rights.

 

No. Free Speech means all speech, free, for better or worse(unless it causes imminent danger, such as yelling "Fire" in a theater).

Really (and, I can't believe I am actually taking the time to respond to you), if anything, the USPTO expanded free speech by removing trademark restrictions from the name "Redskins." Now anybody can use the name for whatever they like-- even Dan Snyder.

 

Don't you feel freer?

[26CornerBlitz]

Really (and, I can't believe I am actually taking the time to respond to you), if anything, the USPTO expanded free speech by removing trademark restrictions from the name "Redskins." Now anybody can use the name for whatever they like-- even Dan Snyder.

 

Don't you feel freer?

 

He has to be wearing a red nose, makeup, and oversized shoes with these silly arguments.

[OCinBuffalo]

And Snyder is still free to use "Redskins" as a team name. The USPTO didn't say he can't...just that he can't own exclusive rights to it.

 

I think the USPTO's decision is wrong because it's pandering and capricious (again, look at all the slurs they haven't withdrawn the trademark on). I don't think they're wrong because they're infringing Snyder's free speech rights.

Hate to break it to you: it doesn't matter what you think. OMG! Call gatorman!

 

All that matters is: the logos TMs are "expression". Free expression is guaranteed.

 

Believe me, if people really want to get into this, I will start posting every disgusting thing that has ever been trademarked. Then we shall see what is "offensive".

 

That's why: a value judgement such as "Redskins is a bad thing to say", is not a legal argument, hell, it's not even a very good logical argument.

 

That's why: if Snyder calls in the lawyers, it will be a blowout in court.

 

I don't know if he will though. My understanding is that these are older logos. He might actually exercise some sound judgement for the first time in his life, and just phase them out. But, they are his property, and he is Dan Snyder...so....

 

(I can't believe I'm having to defend Snyder. I laugh at this tool every single year. But, he has rights, and even as much as I don't like him, we can't let them be infringed)

[Captain Caveman]

The USPTO has no power to suddenly make laws on its own.

 

You mean like the act of Congress that created the USPTO?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Act_of_1836

 

In this case though, we're not talking about a law. The USPTO granted the trademark - are you ok with that, or are you saying the USPTO overstepped in bounds in granting it? So they can grant a patent, but not revoke it?

 

Also, it'd be nice if you would keep it civil. I don't really appreciate the offers of free education.

[OCinBuffalo]

Really (and, I can't believe I am actually taking the time to respond to you), if anything, the USPTO expanded free speech by removing trademark restrictions from the name "Redskins." Now anybody can use the name for whatever they like-- even Dan Snyder.

 

Don't you feel freer?

Yeah, because destruction of intellectual property is exactly the same thing as protecting Free Speech.

 

Are you going to be heading up the arguments for the USPTO in the Supreme Court case that is almost sure to be coming?

 

If so, please tell me when it is. I'll take time off, fly in, hang out with some of my cousins, and see you get curb stomped in court.

He has to be wearing a red nose, makeup, and oversized shoes with these silly arguments.

Yeah, not a single one of which you've been able to refute.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I was pointing out that your metric for "offensive" is nonsense.

 

I don't find it offensive. It just needs to be changed out of decency and respect to the ones it offends.

[NoSaint]

The whole PPP crowd has shown up. Exciting.

[Greg F]

If the National Congress of American Indians, which represents several hundred Native American Tribes, were to argue, for decades, that the term was offensive...

 

The Annenberg Survey (which I posted previously) only found 9% of Native Americans found the Redskins name offensive, 90% didn't find the name offensive, and 1% didn't answer. So apparently National Congress of American Indians claims to represent Native Americans on this issue seems problematic to me.

[26CornerBlitz]

Yeah, because destruction of intellectual property is exactly the same thing as protecting Free Speech.

 

Are you going to be heading up the arguments for the USPTO in the Supreme Court case that is almost sure to be coming?

 

If so, please tell me when it is. I'll take time off, fly in, hang out with some of my cousins, and see you get curb stomped in court.

 

Yeah, not a single one of which you've been able to refute.

I don't need to refute anything. Your specious argument of free speech violation is "patently" incorrect. But you go right ahead and shout it from the mountain tops. I'll enjoy the comedy of your vacuous and voracious verbosity.

[NoSaint]

I find it interesting on one hand Native Americans have their own land, judicial system, school system, laws, etc where the government has no say, no power, no right to collect taxes, and cannot even set foot on their property in a law enforcing manner and yet from these places they want to say what is allowable for us to use.

 

You are in your own country of your own choosing aren't you? Why do you care what we do in ours?

 

Another in the category of not being sure if serious or joking

[ExiledInIllinois]

Another in the category of not being sure if serious or joking

 

Yeah... You gotta kinda blow these posts off. They can't be serious, can they?