DC Tom Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 The whole PPP crowd has shown up. Exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts