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?
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.
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.
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.
Nope. The question of what they could call the team was never at issue in the legal proceeding.
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.
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.
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.
It will be interesting to see what happens next because indie rock band The Slants have had their Trademark case accepted 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.
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.
Do you also understand that the Supreme Court’s ruling was on the Redskins’ request for certiorari before judgment, not on an ordinary appeal?
You just used it.
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.
Well, if Tam is good for them, then it’s good whether or not the cases are joined up. And vice versa.
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?
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.