The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of a law that bans offensive trademarks in a ruling that is expected to help the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name.
The justices ruled that the 71-year-old trademark law barring disparaging terms infringes free speech rights.
A trademark is a legal means you have to prevent other people from speaking. When the government denies you a trademark, it isnt denying your ability to speak, it is denying you the ability to restrict others from speaking.
Im sure there is a hundred years of law saying that trademarks implicate 1st amendment issues (or I guess w/o any research), but it's still weird.
It is very much the government's business as far as government trademarks is concerned. Otherwise, it's an NFL issue and they, not being a government entity, don't have 1st Amendment concerns.
RE: Oops transposed some letters... should be SCOTUS Â
However, there's a difference between "its not offensive" and "it doesn't matter if it is offensive". Just because legally they can keep an offensive trademark, doesn't invalidate the argument that they should choose to change their name.
However, there's a difference between "its not offensive" and "it doesn't matter if it is offensive". Just because legally they can keep an offensive trademark, doesn't invalidate the argument that they should choose to change their name.
I really don't if he ever meant any disrespect for any person, he was just a very enthusiastic and loyal fan. But these days, in the day of Uber Political Correctness, it doesn't work.
Well, hopefully the suits/rulings will go on for several more years Â
A trademark is a legal means you have to prevent other people from speaking. When the government denies you a trademark, it isnt denying your ability to speak, it is denying you the ability to restrict others from speaking.
Im sure there is a hundred years of law saying that trademarks implicate 1st amendment issues (or I guess w/o any research), but it's still weird.
So what you're saying is that you DO care.
A. Oh well
B. Oh well
It is very much the government's business as far as government trademarks is concerned. Otherwise, it's an NFL issue and they, not being a government entity, don't have 1st Amendment concerns.
I think I suffer from SCOTUS. Every morning I wake up with a hard on and don't know where the hell it came from. SCOTUS.
However, there's a difference between "its not offensive" and "it doesn't matter if it is offensive". Just because legally they can keep an offensive trademark, doesn't invalidate the argument that they should choose to change their name.
However, there's a difference between "its not offensive" and "it doesn't matter if it is offensive". Just because legally they can keep an offensive trademark, doesn't invalidate the argument that they should choose to change their name.
Exactly.
“I am THRILLED,” he explained. “Hail to the Redskins!”
So, they aw an Oriental group dat wanted tuh have duh name Slant.
link - ( New Window )
I really don't if he ever meant any disrespect for any person, he was just a very enthusiastic and loyal fan. But these days, in the day of Uber Political Correctness, it doesn't work.