# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/341 "2016-10-04T10:46:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > This is why I dislike sharing “my opinion,” as though my opinion ought to control the world. But you did do it, there. Given what you put it down to, should we be concerned about you having totalitarian leanings? ---
**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, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/342 "2016-10-04T11:11:01Z")
Just to remind … this case is not about whether the team gets to use the name, keep the name, say the name; it’s not about whether it can enforce its rights in the name; it’s not about whether it should or will or be required to change the name. It’s solely about whether it will get to keep its trademark registrations. Not whether it will get to keep its _trademarks_, but only whether it will keep its trademark _registrations_. Those are not the same thing. And that fact, in my view, makes the stakes in this case almost entirely symbolic. ---
**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, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/343 "2016-10-04T13:33:13Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But you did do it, there. Given what you put it down to, should we be concerned about you having totalitarian leanings? Not in the slightest! I do have them, to be sure, but should my total world domination come to pass, it will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity unparalled in human history. So you should certainly not be concerned. ---
**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, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/344 "2016-10-04T13:43:42Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > And that fact, in my view, makes the stakes in this case almost entirely symbolic. Not in agreement with this. The stakes are fidelity to our caselaw concerning the First Amendment. We have shaped the First Amendment to mean that, _inter alia_, that the government’s disapproval of a particular message, or its belief that a message will be hurtful to others, cannot justify the denial of government benefits such as those conferred by the Lanham Act, however symbolic you feel those benefits are. ---
**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, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/345 "2016-10-04T14:33:20Z")
> [@](#): > > … however how symbolic you feel those benefits are Your argument would have been stronger if you had left this part off. Were one to believe that the benefits of registration be symbolic, then that also means that the stakes be symbolic. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/346 "2016-10-04T15:12:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not in the slightest! > > I do have them, to be sure, but should my total world domination come to pass, it will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity unparalled in human history. So you should certainly not be concerned. Don’t they all say that? ---
**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:** [October 4, 2016, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/347 "2016-10-04T16:23:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not in agreement with this. The stakes are fidelity to our caselaw concerning the First Amendment. We have shaped the First Amendment to mean that, _inter alia_, that the government’s disapproval of a particular message, or its belief that a message will be hurtful to others, cannot justify the denial of government benefits such as those conferred by the Lanham Act, however symbolic you feel those benefits are. And we have shaped it to include numerous exceptions with much broader implications. If content-based regulation of trademark registrations is a First Amendment violation, so is the Hatch Act. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/348 "2016-10-04T18:30:48Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > And we have shaped it to include numerous exceptions with much broader implications. If content-based regulation of trademark registrations is a First Amendment violation, so is the Hatch Act. That’s not even an apples to oranges comparison. The Hatch Act is a restriction on professional conduct within the government and has no legal relationship to the first amendment. ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/349 "2016-10-04T18:49:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > And we have shaped it to include numerous exceptions with much broader implications. If content-based regulation of trademark registrations is a First Amendment violation, so is the Hatch Act. Not remotely accurate. Government-as-employer has much more room to demand or suppress expressive content than government-as-benefits-purveyor. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2016, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/350 "2016-10-04T18:52:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Moreoverit’s it’s for a judge to determine if the rule against trademarks disparaging people living or dead is a restriction on speech violative of the First Amendment, and whether the rule is so vague as to be void under the Fifth Amendment. Soon we’ll have a new judicial finding, “Sports teams are people!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/351 "2017-06-19T15:52:42Z")
In 2015, I said: > [@Bricker](#): > > Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a somewhat similar case. > > They gone on to reverse the purportedly offensive trademark at issue in that case - “The Slants,” presumably a reference to Asians. > > The reasoning here would, in my view, equally compel reversal in the Redskins’ case. And today, 8-0 (with Justice Gorsuch taking no part given his late arrival), the Slants win. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I can’t see that holding up (though I agree with the reasoning). The Act _itself_ contravenes the bedrock principle of the First Amendment speech clause. Comments? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/352 "2017-06-19T17:34:20Z")
“It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend,” ~ Samuel Alito, J. I always thought the bit about claiming the official trademark made it “government speech” was just a way of avoiding the inevitable. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/353 "2017-06-19T20:17:18Z")
I’m pleased with the decision in the Slants case, and I have to agree the same should apply to the Redskins. For what it’s worth, I have a far more positive view of the Slants use of a slur (reclaiming the word) than the Redskins use of one – but that doesn’t mean the law should treat them differently. ---
**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:** [June 19, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/354 "2017-06-19T20:50:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Comments? I was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/355 "2017-06-19T21:18:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I was wrong. Make sure to bookmark this post. Some guy likes to run unofficial “who is the most righteous man that can admit error” contests around here. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/356 "2017-06-19T22:52:28Z")
This is good news for my new band, My Ex-Girlfriend Megan Roche is a Whore. (To make it perfectly clear, the personal name is completely made up.) ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/357 "2017-06-19T23:02:06Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > This is good news for my new band, My Ex-Girlfriend Megan Roche is a Whore. > > (To make it perfectly clear, the personal name is completely made up.) It’s good news for free speech. If you want to use it to publicize your feelings towards your ex-girlfriend, that’s up to you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/358 "2017-06-19T23:26:51Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Make sure to bookmark this post. Some guy likes to run unofficial “who is the most righteous man that can admit error” contests around here. It’s a small club, to be sure. But FWIW, I never thought that **RNATB** was not a member. Confusingly doubly negative. I always knew RNATB was someone who had no trouble admitting error in the rare event such error happened. ---
**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:** [June 20, 2017, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/359 "2017-06-20T02:57:58Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > This is good news for my new band, My Ex-Girlfriend Megan Roche is a Whore. > > (To make it perfectly clear, the personal name is completely made up.) > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It’s good news for free speech. If you want to use it to publicize your feelings towards your ex-girlfriend, that’s up to you. There would be a further question of invasion of privacy and defamation. From the argument in Tam: > [@](#): > > JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I know. But your argument earlier was that if someone slanders or libels an individual by saying — Trump before he was a public figure — Trump is a thief and that becomes their trademark, that even if they go to court and prove that that’s a libel or a slander, that trademark would still exist and would be capable of use because otherwise canceling it would be an abridgment of the First Amendment? > > MR. CONNELL: I believe that’s correct. > > JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That makes no sense. My guess would be that if it came down to it, you would be found liable for a tort against Megan Roche and be hit with an injunction barring further use of that trademark in commerce, regardless of whether you had a right to register it under the federal trademark statute. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2017, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942/360 "2017-06-21T13:44:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s a small club, to be sure. But FWIW, I never thought that **RNATB** was not a member. > > Confusingly doubly negative. I always knew RNATB was someone who had no trouble admitting error in the rare event such error happened. Hey, it’s right there in my name. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-win/510942.md?page=19)