Dusty 
Innovative Casanova
Posts: 7,595
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 79
|
RE: Should the Washington Redskins Change Name?
Quote:The government decided that ‘Redskins’ bothers you
George F. Will
June 27 at 7:46 PM
Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo who successfully moved a federal agency to withdraw trademark protections from the Washington Redskins because it considers the team’s name derogatory, lives on a reservation where Navajos root for the Red Mesa High School Redskins. She opposes this name; the Native Americans who picked and retain it evidently do not.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted on a 1946 law banning trademarks that “may disparage” persons. “May” gives the agency latitude to disregard evidence regarding how many people actually feel disparaged or feel that others should feel disparaged. Blackhorse speaks of “the majority of Native American people who have spoken out on this.” This would seem implausible even if a 2004 poll had not found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins’ name. A 2013 AP-GfK poll showed that 79 percent of Americans of all ethnicities opposed changing it, and just 18 percent of “nonwhite football fans” favored changing it.
The federal agency acted in the absence of general or Native American revulsion about “Redskins,” and probably because of this absence. Are the Americans who are paying attention to this controversy comfortable with government saying, in effect, that if people are not offended, they should be, so government must decide what uses of language should be punished?
In today’s regulatory state, agencies often do pretty much as they please, exercising discretion unconstrained by law.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley notes that in 2004 the Federal Election Commission held that the anti-George W. Bush movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” did not need to be regulated as an “electioneering communication” but in 2008 held that the hostile “Hillary: The Movie” was such a communication. In the regulatory state, the rule of law is the rule that law barely limits regulators’ discretion.
Although the death penalty clearly was not considered a “cruel and unusual” punishment when the Eighth Amendment proscription of such punishments was adopted, perhaps society’s “evolving standards of decency” have brought this punishment under the proscription. Standards of decency do evolve: No sports team launched today would select the name “Redskins.” Although Thomas Sowell is correct that “some people are in the business of being offended, just as Campbell is in the business of making soup,” the fact that some people are professionally indignant does not mean offense may be given promiscuously to others.
The name “Redskins” is more problematic than, say, that of the Chicago Blackhawks or Cleveland Indians presumably because “Redskins” refers to skin pigmentation. People offended by this might be similarly distressed if they knew that “Oklahoma” is a compound of two Choctaw words meaning “red” and “people.” Blackhorse, however, has two larger objections.
She says “someone” once told her that teams’ mascots “are meant to be ridiculed,” “to be toyed with,” “to be pushed around and disrespected” and “have stuff thrown at them.” She should supplement the opinion of that someone with information from persons more knowledgeable. But she considers “any team name that references Native Americans” an injurious “appropriation of our culture.” Has an “appropriation” been committed by the University of Utah and Florida State University even though they have the approval of the respective tribes for their teams’ nicknames, the Utes and Seminoles?
William Voegeli, a senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books, writes that the kerfuffle over an NFL team’s name involves serious matters. They include comity in a diverse nation, civil discourse, and “not only how we make decisions, but how we decide what needs to be decided, and who will do the deciding.”
Time was, Voegeli writes, a tolerant society was one with “a mutual non-aggression pact”: If your beliefs and practices offend but do not otherwise affect me, I will not interfere with them if you will reciprocate regarding my beliefs and practices. Now, however, tolerance supposedly requires compulsory acknowledgment that certain people’s beliefs and practices deserve, Voegeli says, “to be honored, respected, affirmed and validated” lest they suffer irreparable injury to their sense of worth. And it requires compelling conformity for the good of the compelled.
When two Oregon bakers chose, for religious reasons, not to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, an Oregon government official explained why tolerance meant coercing the bakers: “The goal is to rehabilitate.” Tolerance required declaring the bakers’ beliefs and practices intolerable. We are going to discover whether a society can be congenial while its government is being coercive regarding wedding cakes and team names.
Take care of those titties for me.
|
|
| 06-28-2014 11:58 AM |
|
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
|
The Father
Banned
Posts: 1,329
Joined: Mar 2014
|
RE: Should the Washington Redskins Change Name?
(06-10-2014 01:48 PM)runsonmagic Wrote: I still like Roosh's accidental sports name - the New York Cougars.
We should give all sports teams controversial mascots.
I'd totally cheer for the San Francisco Faggots.
OMG! That's so bad! Other teams could be:
- San Antonio Wetbacks
- San Francisco Chinks
- New York Jews
- The Harlem N-words
- New Jersey Dago's
p.s. Before some of you get all butt-hurt, please note that I fall into one of the categories above.
|
|
| 06-28-2014 12:24 PM |
|
The following 1 user Likes The Father's post:1 user Likes The Father's post
Kingsley Davis
|
JayMillz 
International Playboy
Posts: 3,455
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
|
RE: Should the Washington Redskins Change Name?
University of Minnesota president wants to keep Redskins name out of stadium when Vikings host Washington in November
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The University of Minnesota says it’s working with the Minnesota Vikings to keep the Washington Redskins’ name from being used when the two teams play on campus in November.
University President Eric Kaler gave the assurances in an Aug. 1 letter to U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum, a Democrat who has said using the name would violate school policies on equity and diversity.
Vikings spokesman Lester Bagley said the organization is sensitive to the issue, especially given Minnesota’s significant Native American population.
He said NFL policies obligate the Vikings to market the Nov. 2 game as they would any other game. When asked if that meant the Redskins’ name would be used, Bagley would only say that the Vikings will continue talking with university leaders and leaders of the Native American community as the game draws near.
“It’s an important issue, and we take it seriously,” he said.
Bagley said the Vikings have already met with university officials and more talks are expected but nothing has been scheduled.
McCollum issued a statement Thursday saying she is pleased Kaler is talking with the Vikings.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/footba...z39oS1N2Cq
|
|
| 08-08-2014 09:57 AM |
|
|
JayMillz
International Playboy
Posts: 3,455
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 24
|
RE: Should the Washington Redskins Change Name?
https://tv.yahoo.com/news/-daily-show--s...23087.html
'Daily Show' Segment Leads to Shouting Match Between Redskins Fans and Native Americans
Several Washington Redskins fans are unhappy about a Daily Show segment they participated in that pitted them against Native Americans in the ongoing debate over the team's controversial name.
The segment, filmed Sept. 13 for a yet-to-air episode, involved a heated back-and-forth, with the fans feeling unaware of what they had signed up for, according to the Washington Post.
Kelli O'Dell, a 56-year-old former teacher, was in tears during the segment and has asked the show not to include any footage of her, although a show producer said he couldn't promise that she would be omitted. Two days later, O'Dell tried to file a police report but was told no crime had been committed.
"This goes way beyond mocking," O'Dell said of the way she and her fellow fans were treated. "The Native Americans accused me of things that were so wrong. I felt in danger. I didn’t consent to that. I am going to be defamed."
Among the Native Americans who participated in the segment was Amanda Blackhorse, lead plaintiff in the case that led to the Redskins losing their trademark on the name. "I said to them, ‘You sound like an alcoholic, someone who’s in denial and who doesn’t want to believe what they’re doing is not right,' " Blackhorse said afterward. "They don’t see anything wrong with it. "
Fan Brian Dortch said he regrets wearing a Redskins jacket, which a Daily Show producer insisted that he wear. "I am just an average fan," Dortch said. "These are activists who have media training and talking points."
|
|
| 09-22-2014 12:00 PM |
|
|
Habano 
Beta Orbiter
Posts: 119
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 2
|
RE: Should the Washington Redskins Change Name?
Interesting development yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/sports...uling.html
A federal appellate court (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) just held that the portion of the Lanham Act that prohibits "disparaging" or "offensive" trademarks violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech and is therefore invalid.
The case didn't involve the revocation of the Redskin's trademark. Instead, it involved an Asian-American band called the "Slants." After the group was denied the ability to register its band name as a trademark because the Patent and Trademark Office deemed it offensive under the Lanham Act, the federal court struck the law down. In so doing, the court noted that “[i]t is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys.”
But the Slants case involves the same law that was used to strip the Redskins of its trademark protection. If the court reviewing the Redskin's trademark case makes a similar conclusion that government lawyers using the Lanham Act to deny trademark protection (because they believe "Redskins" is "offensive" or "disparaging" to Native Americans) unduly trammels constitutionally protected speech, the Redskins win by a large margin.
I don't know whether that will actually happen, but it's encouraging to see that there are still a handful of judges who are willing to take a stand against the PC culture in favor of constitutional values.
|
|
| 12-23-2015 08:42 PM |
|
The following 5 users Like Habano's post:5 users Like Habano's post
Ocelot, Days of Broken Arrows, spokepoker, username, Menace
|
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
