Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Can you explain why you think this name is offensive? Be specific. Also why is courage, valor, sportsmanship, teamwork etc deemed offensive to you?
I think the first part about why the name can be considered offensive has been beaten into the ground. If you can’t see it, I don’t know what to tell you.
As for the second part, who has been offended by courage, valor, sportsmanship or teamwork?
Private property is not a big deal? Do you own anything? Do you own a business?
Is a trademark the equivalent of a car or a house or any other physical good?
There has to be some difference, because I can’t think of a comparable situation with a physical thing, where you no longer had the right to it, but could still use it and defend it.
Is that the Redskin’s statement on the ruling?
I’m having a hard time picking out what is from their statement, from an article, and your own comments.
Again, why do you care? You have stated you do not care if something is ofensive so why are lobbying for this? Only reason I can see is political brainwashing.
I’m saying I understand why the USPTO cancelled the trademark, and I think it was the correct decision based on my understanding (limited) of trademark law, and also not a political decision. I’m also saying that I think people who are arguing that the name can’t be considered offensive, or is no more offensive that Chiefs or Braves are being disingenuous.
The only reason I can see that you can’t comprehend what I’m saying is political brainwashing.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED(!) that the man who received both his bachelor’s and law degree from UNC is thinking about dropping the charges against one of the people responsible for UNC’s unprecedented success in athletics.
I’m a Block S without the NC kind of guy, but this is tolerable. I’m not sure how the stat people are going to figure that “points in the paint” stat though.
Argh, excellent point. How can you have ‘paint’ with no paint.
Also, paint is a weird word. It’s like pants that just cain’t.
No, the test is whether you would refer to the Washington pro football team as the Redskins. That is the only issue at hand. Personalization and name calling is NOT the issue. This is a historical team name of 80 years.
Why is your little example different than walking up to an Indian and calling them “Chief”, “Brave” or “Warrior”?
Irrelevant. The team isn’t called the chiefs, braves, or warriors. Also, if someone was a chief, brave, or warrior, would you even hesitate to call them that?
And the court has struck down your second arguement, correct?
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
also, these folks or their ancestors carried their butt over here just like everyone else…Nobody was placed here by God or evolved here. Tribal American is more like it.
Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations after which a population can be considered native? Doesn’t it seem like before Moses is an acceptable cutoff?
Nobody is being personally “called” a “Redskin”. Why is that so hard to understand? Which talking head did you pick that talking point up from?
JFC…
I’m not saying, and have never said, anyone is being called “redskin”.
I’m saying, the test for whether it’s offensive or not is, would you use it to refer to a native american.
The governments “job” is not to bully private businesses with 80+ year historical names. The first coach of the Redskins was an Indian and the team was named to honor him.
The USPTOs job is to enforce trademark law. Trademark law doesn’t allow for trademarking things which would be considered disparaging. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.
Nobody is being ‘bullied’ here. Nobody has said they don’t have the right to use the Redskins name. They’re free to use it until Jesus comes back (and after, depending on where they stand), it’s just not protected by trademark. Because it’s considered disparaging. Which they heard hours of evidence on.
Couldn’t a redskin be a potato?
No, I’ve been trying to address three separate issues.
1) Is the name ‘Redskins’ offensive?
I think the test for this one is fairly straight forward. Would you call a native american a redskin to their face? I don’t believe anybody can credibly claim that they would.
2) Is canceling the trademark a political move?
I don’t think so. It looks like a pretty straight forward case of a government agency actually doing their job. They held a hearing, were presented with a load of evidence, and made a ruling. This isn’t the first time the Redskins trademark has been cancelled. It was also cancelled in 1999, but overturned on a technicality.
3) Is canceling the trademark infringement on the rights of the Redskins organization?
I’m a little conflicted about whether there’s a right to trademarks. They’re not mentioned in the constitution or bill of rights, and while I understand there is a common law right to trademark, that seems to be a part of historical precedent in trademark protection rather than a defined right like freedom of speech. I’m not familiar with the intricacies of common law, and it’s way above my pay grade. To me, they look like a restricted privilege, because as far as I can tell, they’re intended to increase confidence and minimize confusion by preventing people from copying branding and potentially deceiving consumers. In the sense that it’s limited, and in a way dictates what others are not allowed to do (copy branding) vs dictating what everyone is allowed to do (freedom of speech), I don’t think it’s an inalienable right. I could probably be convinced otherwise.
I don’t like it. I wish we could go back to something more traditional and old school like pink and blue.
Maybe not everything but in this case it is.
No it’s not. Evidence was presented to establish that the term “redskin” is a racial slur. Once that is established, it can’t be trademarked. There’s nothing PC about it.
You and I have had many back and forths in which both of us said things that were offensive to the other. You seem to be OK with that but get worked up about this? Seens two faced to me. If you believe no one should ever be offended you should certainly practice what you preach.
I’m not particularly worked up about this, and I’m not sure where you’re getting the impression that I am. I simply answered your question about where the idea that someone has the right to not be offended comes from.
As for being hypocritical or two-faced, I’m obviously not very concerned with being offended or offending so I’m not sure where the hypocrisy is.
It can’t be a good sign that the offense is being changed in just the 2nd year. But if it works out, I’m all for it.
The explanation I heard was the offense isn’t being changed, so much as it is the play calling being tailored to fit Brissett’s strengths.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pakfanistan wrote:</div>
Seriously, where did this idea that someone has a right to a trademark come from?Where did this idea that someone has a right not to be offended come from? Freedom means some people do things you do not like.<br>
This is just an extension of the helicopter parent. Trying to make sure nothing bad every happens to anyone. That is simply not life.Within certain bounds, it’s common courtesy. As decent humans we shouldn’t go out of our way to offend people. Likewise we have the obligation to try not to be offended by everything.
Not everything that offends someone is PC run amok.
If you want to get theological about it, it’s an old, old concept.
Romans 14:14-17 I know and am convinced on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong. And if another believer is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don’t let your eating ruin someone for whom Christ died. Then you will not be criticized for doing something you believe is good. For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
The UNC Scandal is now entering chapter LXXVIII of Officer Barbrady’s chant. Link. Wainstein began investigating in ‘February’ and expects to be done with the investigation by the fall. Anyone want to find out how much Wainstein is making on this ‘investigation’?
I heard $922/hr.
It would take me years to crack a case like this at $922/hr.
Pakfanistan,
Sorry – I guess you do not understand that Congress is given the right under Articel 1, Section 8, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” You may not realize that federal trademark registrations are only granted by the Federal Government on marks solely used to identify the source of goods and/or services that are being sold in interstate commerce in the U.S.
Since Congress has the right to regulate commerce – the rights granted under a federal trademark registration “derive” directly from powers granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.
The point about trademarks being solely for goods and services is, in fact, new to me. I still think it’s rather flimsy to extrapolate out from “regulate commerce” to protect names and images.
I do think trademark is a good thing. I’m glad I don’t have to wonder if I’m eating at a real McDonalds or a knockoff. Or that I’m getting a genuine Apple computer and not a chinese clone.
And yes, my beef is primarily with the length of copyright, and the triviality of some patents, both of which I think are crushing creativity and innovation at the moment.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;No, no trademark there…
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
No, no trademark there.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
No, no trademark there.
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
No, no trademark there.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
No, no trademark there.
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
No, no trademark there.
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
No, no trademark there.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
No, no trademark there, copyright and patent yes. But it also says limited time for Authors, but now copyright is 120 years, which is completely ridiculous.
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
No, no trademark there.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
No, no trademark there.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
No, no trademark there.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
No, no trademark there.
To provide and maintain a Navy;
No, no trademark there.
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
No, no trademark there.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
No, no trademark there.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
No, no trademark there.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
No, no trademark there.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
No, no trademark there.
So no, no trademarks in the constitution.
Regardless, trademarks, copyright and patents are completely unnatural, and exist only because the government exists, and should exist for the greater good, which is why they were created, to foster creativity and innovation by protecting authors and inventors. But, they were always meant to be limited in time, so that works pass into the public domain. The current copyright and patent laws are a travesty.
That’s not what happened here. Why do you think this was a political decision?
The USPTO held a hearing and was presented evidence they felt established the term ‘redskin’ as an racial slur, an therefore not trademarkable. Just because a politician agrees with the decision doesn’t make it a political decision.
Seriously, where did this idea that someone has a right to a trademark come from?
Does the declaration of independence say something about the right to life, liberty, and the protection of corporate logos?
The trademark, copyright, and patents are all completely made up. They have absolutely no basis in reality.
This bs is what we get with the nullification of survival of the fittest and a subsidized gene pool.
Except that’s not how evolution works….
Whether native americans ever called themselves redskins is irrelevant. As has been pointed out previously, black people used to call themselves negro or colored, but I think it’s accepted by everyone outside of a small subset of Nevada ranchers that those terms are considered offensive today.
You are missing the point NAV. The point is not to go up to so someone and call them a “name”. When approaching ANYBOY other than a child it should be Sir or Ma’am. We are talking about a team name. It can be argued that the team name is not out of mockery but out of respect.
I reject the perpetual victim status of minority groups. We are all individuals and are all equal in the sight of the laws of the USA and in sight of God. It really does not matter who your parents were. If you were born here you are a native. Everyone has the same opportunity.
Would you support a team name mocking another religion besides Christianity? Do you know why “Fighting Irish” while being derogatory is not offensive? Because Irish don’t evaluate their self worth based on a team mascot. It’s pathetic and ridiculous.
Is that you Dan Snyder?
The thought experiment of calling someone a name is a test. The test is, “would it be offensive or derogatory?” For the term redskin, unless you’re referring to the aforementioned potatoes, the answer is unequivocally yes.
This isn’t some slippery slope that ends with us only naming teams after inanimate objects, although that would be hilarious.
The Washington Love Seats vs. the Dallas Pepper Mills…
It was more of a joke.
Can’t trust the internet and sarcasm.
