# Redskins Win! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2009, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942 "2009-09-21T13:41:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/321 "2015-12-23T22:25:24Z")
Well, yes. It is inherently a limitation on speech. So if you’re going to strike down the rules about disparagement then it seems to me you have to get rid of the whole thing, which clearly isn’t going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2015, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/322 "2015-12-23T23:08:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, yes. It is inherently a limitation on speech. So if you’re going to strike down the rules about disparagement then it seems to me you have to get rid of the whole thing, which clearly isn’t going to happen. Wait, you’re seriously contending that Section 2(a) is not severable? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/323 "2015-12-24T01:23:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, yes. It is inherently a limitation on speech. So if you’re going to strike down the rules about disparagement then it seems to me you have to get rid of the whole thing, which clearly isn’t going to happen. Is your point that any trademark protection at all is broadly speaking a type of limitation on speech? Every court will agree with that. No court will agree that any trademark protection at all is an unconstitutional restriction of speech. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/324 "2015-12-24T06:15:50Z")
What this ruling does is say that Washington’s football team has the right to call themselves a racist term. Not that the term isn’t racist. Because it is. ---
**Author:** ![phreak9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/45deac/32.png) [@phreak9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phreak9)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/325 "2015-12-24T07:13:03Z")
George Preston Marshall was so racist he offended a black running back who refused to sign and play for him after being the 1st round draft choice. You dont have to dig very far to find a lot of racist leanings from the guy. If you cant find 5 sources and quotes in 10 minutes youre probably, at least, mildly retarded. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/326 "2015-12-24T13:38:09Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > What this ruling does is say that Washington’s football team has the right to call themselves a racist term. Nope. The question of what they could call the team was never at issue in the legal proceeding. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/327 "2015-12-24T14:02:52Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > What this ruling does is say that Washington’s football team has the right to call themselves a racist term. Not that the term isn’t racist. Because it is. That’s exactly what the First Amendment says, actually: we all have the right to call ourselves, and even each other, racist terms. The RULING says something about trademarks. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/328 "2015-12-24T14:16:50Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Your analogy is irrelevant. You may as well said that they could have been provided hundreds of pages of cake recipes or the schematics of Hi-Fi systems from the '60s or Straight Dope columns. Because, sure, they could have, but how successful would the case brought to them had been? > > The fact is that the Patent Office looked at the body of evidence and deemed it credible. You don’t think the Patent Office was bamboozled by pages and pages of the equivalent of pseudoscience, do you? I don’t think you can since you can’t even point out how one piece of the evidence was faulty, let alone a decent enough portion of it so as to make all of it suspect. > [@Bricker](#): > > So what will you say if the court reaches a different conclusion? What you could say, now that we’re here, is: the court didn’t reach a different conclusion. While they reversed the district court’s striking of the trademark registration, they didn’t claim the name was not racist – just that the First Amendment forbid the government’s decision to condition a benefit on governmental approval or disapproval of a message. The government may disapprove of racism but can’t express that disapproval by withholding a benefit that it would allow to a similarly situated entity with a palatable message. Of course, this is not even the Redskins case, which is coming through the Fourth Circuit, not the Federal Circuit. But it’s a distinction–First Amendment as opposed to actually racist or not-- worth highlighting. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/329 "2015-12-24T21:48:14Z")
I claimed that they wouldn’t reverse the decision by saying the term wasn’t racist and offensive and derogatory. Not only did that not happen, the court specifically is saying that they have every right to have their racist, offensive and derogatory name trademarked. As I said, this court ruling made it clear that the United States should be trademarking things even if they are racist, offensive and derogatory. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2015, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/330 "2015-12-24T22:29:26Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I claimed that they wouldn’t reverse the decision by saying the term wasn’t racist and offensive and derogatory. Not only did that not happen, the court specifically is saying that they have every right to have their racist, offensive and derogatory name trademarked. > > As I said, this court ruling made it clear that the United States should be trademarking things even if they are racist, offensive and derogatory. Registered, not trademarked. Registering, not trademarking. Whether a derogatory term can be a trademark is not at issue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2016, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/331 "2016-10-03T16:55:54Z")
> [@](#): > > **Supreme Court rejects trademark appeal from Washington Redskins** > > Sell all the Washington Redskins paraphernalia you want. There’s nothing Dan Snyder can do about it. > > The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the Redskins, who hoped to reverse an earlier U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruling that canceled the team’s trademarks based on a policy that “prohibits registration of marks that may disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute.” > > [Yahoo! Sports](http://sports.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-trademark-appeal-from-washington-redskins-150634854.html) It will be interesting to see what happens next because indie rock band [The Slants](http://www.theslants.com/) have [had their Trademark case accepted](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/supreme-court-hear-slants-trademark-case-n656871) by the Supreme Court because their name was also deemed offensive. I understand the difference between a band made up entirely of Asian Americans “taking back” the offensive term and how it is markedly different from the corporate football team which has no connection to Native American ownership or involvement and never had - just as I understand why it is permitted for black people to say “Nigga” while us white people have a lot more privileges so we don’t get to use that word. However I don’t have faith that the courts will be able to make a meaningful legal difference between the two, so it will be interesting to see what happens next. The good news is more bad PR for Danny Snyder, and him spending even more money to keep their antiquated, racist name and maybe even the team losing even more money on bootleg merchandise with the extra levels of protection that they lost. Another plank in hopefully getting them to change that offensive name regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks about The Slants. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/332 "2016-10-03T16:59:50Z")
I’ve said it before – they should keep the NA imagery (except maybe the chief’s face) and change the name to the alliterative “Washington Warriors”. Sounds good, non-offensive, honors the martial prowess of native Americans in a non-offensive way (I think!), and retains most of the imagery and such for the fanbase. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/333 "2016-10-03T19:39:16Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I understand the difference between a band made up entirely of Asian Americans “taking back” the offensive term and how it is markedly different from the corporate football team which has no connection to Native American ownership or involvement and never had - just as I understand why it is permitted for black people to say “Nigga” while us white people have a lot more privileges so we don’t get to use that word. Do you also understand that the Supreme Court’s ruling was on the Redskins’ request for certiorari before judgment, not on an ordinary appeal? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/334 "2016-10-03T19:40:23Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > It will be interesting to see what happens next because indie rock band [The Slants](http://www.theslants.com/) have [had their Trademark case accepted](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/supreme-court-hear-slants-trademark-case-n656871) by the Supreme Court because their name was also deemed offensive. > > I understand the difference between a band made up entirely of Asian Americans “taking back” the offensive term and how it is markedly different from the corporate football team which has no connection to Native American ownership or involvement and never had - just as I understand why it is permitted for black people to say “Nigga” while us white people have a lot more privileges so we don’t get to use that word. > > However I don’t have faith that the courts will be able to make a meaningful legal difference between the two, so it will be interesting to see what happens next. > > The good news is more bad PR for Danny Snyder, and him spending even more money to keep their antiquated, racist name and maybe even the team losing even more money on bootleg merchandise with the extra levels of protection that they lost. > > Another plank in hopefully getting them to change that offensive name regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks about The Slants. You just used it. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/335 "2016-10-03T19:42:16Z")
The cert denial today is not a loss for or a blow to Snyder’s position at all. It merely stopped Pro-Football from leapfrogging the Fourth Circuit. I see no reason to believe that this indicates an outcome in the Tam case that will be bad (or good) for the Redskins. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/336 "2016-10-03T21:37:58Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The cert denial today is not a loss for or a blow to Snyder’s position at all. It merely stopped Pro-Football from leapfrogging the Fourth Circuit. I see no reason to believe that this indicates an outcome in the Tam case that will be bad (or good) for the Redskins. The team with the racist name seems to think it will be good for them. Otherwise, why would they have desired the cases to be in tandem? They’re just trying to be the white person who says “They get to say nigger, so I get to say it too.” And they are hopeful that the Supreme Court will confirm that is perfectly okay. And they very well might but that won’t change the fact the name is racist and should have been changed decades ago. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/337 "2016-10-04T00:22:32Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > The team with the racist name seems to think it will be good for them. Otherwise, why would they have desired the cases to be in tandem? Well, if Tam is good for them, then it’s good whether or not the cases are joined up. And vice versa. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/338 "2016-10-04T03:54:41Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > And they very well might but that won’t change the fact the name is racist and should have been changed decades ago. In your opinion. An opinion not shared by the majority of the population that supposedly is insulted. Must be tough, being more enlightened than those benighted Native Americans, most so stupid that they don’t understand how insulted they are supposed to be, eh? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/339 "2016-10-04T04:01:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In your opinion. Oh, so you still think the name isn’t racist? Funny. in this thread you were all about giving your opinion on that but as soon as your team with the racist name decided that the best way to continue using their racist name was to trot out a bunch of obviously offensive and racist trademarked things, you suddenly decided that your opinion didn’t matter. Does it matter now? Because your team with the racist name still tried to defend their use of the name not by saying it wasn’t racist, but by pointing out all the other nasty trademarked things and now they are trying to piggyback onto a case that involves Asian Americans “taking it back.” What do you suppose they were taking back? Oh right, an ethnic slur. So you still think the name isn’t racist? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/340 "2016-10-04T05:43:17Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Oh, so you still think the name isn’t racist? > > Funny. in this thread you were all about giving your opinion on that but as soon as your team with the racist name decided that the best way to continue using their racist name was to trot out a bunch of obviously offensive and racist trademarked things, you suddenly decided that your opinion didn’t matter. > > Does it matter now? Because your team with the racist name still tried to defend their use of the name not by saying it wasn’t racist, but by pointing out all the other nasty trademarked things and now they are trying to piggyback onto a case that involves Asian Americans “taking it back.” > > What do you suppose they were taking back? Oh right, an ethnic slur. > > So you still think the name isn’t racist? I think that “the name is racist,” is not a claim that’s analogous to, “Iron is magnetic.” The fact that iron is magnetic is objectively verifiable. The quanta of intended racism in a name is not. In my view, if the majority of the supposed impugned population doesn’t think the name is offensive, then deciding that it is nonetheless racist is not a useful model for racism. This is why I dislike sharing “my opinion,” as though my opinion ought to control the world. It should, I agree, but since you folks fail to acknowledge my rightful place as your wise sovereign, I prefer to limit my commentary to what we can mutually agree upon: the rule of law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942.md?page=18)