What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bad News For Liberals. (1 Viewer)

roadkill1292 said:
That's just a temporary setback. History rolls leftwards towards progress.
Click to expand...
You can peacefully protest, convince others of the validity of your position, or boycott the team and its products. What today's ruling says is you cannot weaponize government to force your point of view on someone else. 

An 8-0 ruling means even the resident liberals thought it was unconstitutional. 

 
Not certain how this is necessarily bad news for liberals. This was an unanimous 8-0 decision, so presumably the liberal justices did not have an issue with it. The Redskins trademark is safe, but at some point in the future, the name will be changed (probably when Synder or the NFL realizes that the negative PR outweighs any advantage to the league)l.

 
Tom Servo said:
You can peacefully protest, convince others of the validity of your position, or boycott the team and its products. What today's ruling says is you cannot weaponize government to force your point of view on someone else. 

An 8-0 ruling means even the resident liberals thought it was unconstitutional. 
Click to expand...
It may indeed have been the correct legal decision. But the public's collective conscience will ultimately render the nickname too toxic for anyone to support. 

 
LOL at "weaponize government."  Enforcing trademarks is "weaponizing government" in restraint of speech.  Dan Snyder now has the right to employ the power of the federal government to prevent others from using the phrase "Washington Redskins" in commerce. 

 
It's weird that you see this as a liberal/conservative issue.

"Bad news, libs! Slavery was just upheld by the Supreme Court! YEAHHHHHHHHH!"

 
I wouldn't say it is bad news. I mean it's a complicated issue to the point the Supreme Court had to rule on it. Now that they have people can now focus change with respect to that name through the free market, but the process played out exactly how it should have with our government.

i for one am glad for that, even if it's not the decision that I may have wanted.

 
Tom Servo said:
You can peacefully protest, convince others of the validity of your position, or boycott the team and its products. What today's ruling says is you cannot weaponize government to force your point of view on someone else. 

An 8-0 ruling means even the resident liberals thought it was unconstitutional. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

I'm not sure it would be possible to misstate a decision more than the bolded. The entire concept of a trademark is to "weaponize" the government to force people to not say certain things in certain places, or to pay you when they do. What the rulings says is that you may continue to use the government to protect your intellectual property even if that property disparages minorities.

This ruling is a huge win for the Skins in their legal battle, but even acknowledging its relevance amounts to an admission that the Redskins name disparages Native Americans.  If it didn't this ruling would be irrelevant for the team.

 
TobiasFunke said:
:lmao:

I'm not sure it would be possible to misstate a decision more than the bolded. The entire concept of a trademark is to "weaponize" the government to force people to not say certain things in certain places, or to pay you when they do. What the rulings says is that you may continue to use the government to protect your intellectual property even if that property disparages minorities.

This ruling is a huge win for the Skins in their legal battle, but even acknowledging its relevance amounts to an admission that the Redskins name disparages Native Americans.  If it didn't this ruling would be irrelevant for the team.
Click to expand...
By "weaponize", I meant the government is not in the business of what is or is not offensive. This is the type of decision that should be made by society/free market, not the government. 

 
Tom Servo said:
By "weaponize", I meant the government is not in the business of what is or is not offensive. This is the type of decision that should be made by society/free market, not the government. 
Click to expand...
Society/the free market could and still can make the ultimate decision on this, no matter how the court ruled.  This debate was solely about what sort of speech can be monopolized with the backing of government protection. There is no public vs private angle here.

A true free market advocate who opposed "weaponizing the government" would argue for the removal of trademarks entirely, yes? After all why should the government protect a team's right to a word or image, offensive or not?  George Preston Marshall and the team ownership didn't invent the word.  They were just the first people to think to weaponize the government to restrict other people from doing so in certain contexts.

Just to clarify and take the Skins/disparaging or derogatory word part out of this: why is a billionaire with a disastrous facelift and a penchant for scotch and hookers allowed to sue regular people for using a star and the word "Cowboys"?  He didn't invent either one.  He's weaponizing the government to restrict speech and line his own pockets- the same thing you seem to be railing against here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Servo said:
By "weaponize", I meant the government is not in the business of what is or is not offensive. This is the type of decision that should be made by society/free market, not the government. 
Click to expand...
I didn't think there was anybody left defending the nickname.

 
I'll move all my general legal related musings to this thread because they're all kind of meaningless to the question of whether I think Snyder should change the name.  I mean, I do, but I felt more strongly about it when I still considered myself nominally a fan of the team.  As I've grown to care less about football, I care less about the name.

But let's take the decision at face value.  The government should not be in the position of deciding what is or what is not "disparaging."  And shouldn't deny a benefit on that basis.  OK, what about indecency?  I mean, the government regulates decency on the broadcast spectrum.  And violations of those standards can result in a license to broadcast on that spectrum being revoked.  Theoretically, the free market could also handle this situation.  If consumers don't want indecency on the broadcast channels, they can support PAX or something. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I'll move all my general legal related musings to this thread because they're all kind of meaningless to the question of whether I think Snyder should change the name.  I mean, I do, but I felt more strongly about it when I still considered myself nominally a fan of the team.  As I've grown to care less about football, I care less about the name.

But let's take the decision at face value.  The government should not be in the position of deciding what is or what is not "disparaging."  And shouldn't deny a benefit on that basis.  OK, what about indecency?  I mean, the government regulates decency on the broadcast spectrum.  And violations of those standards can result in a license to broadcast on that spectrum being revoked.  Theoretically, the free market could also handle this situation.  If consumers don't want indecency on the broadcast channels, they can support PAX or something. 
Click to expand...
So the use of "Redskins" is indecent to the point of justifying some sort of government-mandated restriction of its use? There are lots of other things in life that piss certain people off, including me, sometimes. Let the market be the arbiter of what is acceptable in the private arena, not the government.

 
weaponizing government, lol.

That's straight out of hyperbolic Trump speak, that is if Trump actually knew what the term weaponize meant.

 
dickey moe said:
So the use of "Redskins" is indecent to the point of justifying some sort of government-mandated restriction of its use? There are lots of other things in life that piss certain people off, including me, sometimes. Let the market be the arbiter of what is acceptable in the private arena, not the government.
Click to expand...
No, I'm leaving Redskins out of it.  I'm asking If the government refusing to confer a benefit on the basis of "disparaging" speech violates the constitution, what happens to those laws where the government refuses to confer a benefit based on indecent (or "immoral", or obscene) speech?  And I've given two examples.  One is the same statute, where a trademark can be cancelled when it "Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter."  The other is in FCC licensing where the FCC is granted the right to regulate "indecency" during the hours when children may be watching/listening.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
No, I'm leaving Redskins out of it.  I'm asking If the government refusing to confer a benefit on the basis of "disparaging" speech violates the constitution, what happens to those laws where the government refuses to confer a benefit based on indecent (or "immoral", or obscene) speech?  And I've given two examples.  One is the same statute, where a trademark can be cancelled when it "Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter."  The other is in FCC licensing where the FCC is granted the right to regulate "indecency" during the hours when children may be watching/listening.
Click to expand...
This is where I am.  I'd prefer overturning FCC rules to canceling the Redskins' trademark, but if the FCC can regulate I don't see why the patent and trademark office can't.  Hopefully this is a first salvo in a big first amendment return to prominence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Society/the free market could and still can make the ultimate decision on this, no matter how the court ruled.  This debate was solely about what sort of speech can be monopolized with the backing of government protection. There is no public vs private angle here.

A true free market advocate who opposed "weaponizing the government" would argue for the removal of trademarks entirely, yes? After all why should the government protect a team's right to a word or image, offensive or not?  George Preston Marshall and the team ownership didn't invent the word.  They were just the first people to think to weaponize the government to restrict other people from doing so in certain contexts.

Just to clarify and take the Skins/disparaging or derogatory word part out of this: why is a billionaire with a disastrous facelift and a penchant for scotch and hookers allowed to sue regular people for using a star and the word "Cowboys"?  He didn't invent either one.  He's weaponizing the government to restrict speech and line his own pockets- the same thing you seem to be railing against here.
Click to expand...
Yes, the market could make this decision, but why get the government involved? What was particularly ironic was that an Asian band called "The Slants" was denied the very protection by a government who unilaterally decided that the term was offensive. The market - such as it was - consisted of everyone (not just the band) selling merchandise with that name. I guarantee you the market would work to the band's detriment because I could sell "bootleg" (non-band approved) T-shirts, live recordings and the like.

Your second paragraph is totally incorrect; a free market solution rewards hard work and industry. The ban on offensive names actually runs counter to this (see my paragraph above) by allowing economic vultures to come in and profit off someone else's hard work without paying that person. The first person to market an idea and claim it as their own should get the credit for their imagination and product(s). That's the purpose of what a government patent/trademark/copyright is all about - rewarding those who develop ideas and force others who wish to use those ideas to give credit (in terms of recognition/dollars). It's what got Ray Parker, Jr. in trouble back in the 80s; he failed to give credit to Huey Lewis for the arrangement of notes he used in "Ghostbusters".

Finally, no, Jerry Jones is the holder of a patent to the word "cowboys" in conjunction with a blue star with silver trim. He bought those rights from the previous owner fair and square, and should be able to profit off that idea. No one else can profit from it without paying royalties, the same as if you wanted to sell Tobias Funke T-shirts, mugs, or CDs. Just because he didn't invent the word "cowboys" doesn't mean he can't profit from it if he uses it in a unique or novel way - like a professional football team.

 
The purpose of the Lanham Act is not to reward hard work.  It's to prevent consumer confusion in the market place.  Which is why trademarks/brands are not contemplated in the IP clause of the Constitution.  I mean, do we really need to incentivize the creation of Crystal Pepsi(TM)?

 
Tom Servo said:
Yes, the market could make this decision, but why get the government involved? What was particularly ironic was that an Asian band called "The Slants" was denied the very protection by a government who unilaterally decided that the term was offensive. The market - such as it was - consisted of everyone (not just the band) selling merchandise with that name. I guarantee you the market would work to the band's detriment because I could sell "bootleg" (non-band approved) T-shirts, live recordings and the like.

Your second paragraph is totally incorrect; a free market solution rewards hard work and industry. The ban on offensive names actually runs counter to this (see my paragraph above) by allowing economic vultures to come in and profit off someone else's hard work without paying that person. The first person to market an idea and claim it as their own should get the credit for their imagination and product(s). That's the purpose of what a government patent/trademark/copyright is all about - rewarding those who develop ideas and force others who wish to use those ideas to give credit (in terms of recognition/dollars). It's what got Ray Parker, Jr. in trouble back in the 80s; he failed to give credit to Huey Lewis for the arrangement of notes he used in "Ghostbusters".

Finally, no, Jerry Jones is the holder of a patent to the word "cowboys" in conjunction with a blue star with silver trim. He bought those rights from the previous owner fair and square, and should be able to profit off that idea. No one else can profit from it without paying royalties, the same as if you wanted to sell Tobias Funke T-shirts, mugs, or CDs. Just because he didn't invent the word "cowboys" doesn't mean he can't profit from it if he uses it in a unique or novel way - like a professional football team.
Click to expand...
You just asked "why get the government involved" before providing two full paragraphs explaining why people get the government involved.

Once you are reliant until the government to protect your interests, you are beholden to whether the government decides whether your interests are eligible for or worthy of protection under the law.  In this case, they decided that they are. So be it.

But the idea that one person or corporation can request government protection or sanctioning but another person can't challenge their eligibility/worthiness for that protection/sanctioning makes no sense. You're trying to introduce a big government/small government argument into a dispute that takes place entirely within the regulatory framework. It's nonsense. It's akin to saying that a power plant should be able to get a permit but residents can't "weaponize government" to raise their objections to that permit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
But let's take the decision at face value.  The government should not be in the position of deciding what is or what is not "disparaging."  And shouldn't deny a benefit on that basis.  OK, what about indecency?  I mean, the government regulates decency on the broadcast spectrum.  And violations of those standards can result in a license to broadcast on that spectrum being revoked.  Theoretically, the free market could also handle this situation.  If consumers don't want indecency on the broadcast channels, they can support PAX or something. 
Click to expand...
Per the Washington Times story:

“Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said in his opinion for the court.
Click to expand...
I think that a discussion on that would be interesting. Where is that line drawn where a lack of decency constitutes offense? What happens if someone like me wants to watch a certain movie, but wants to use something like Vid Angel to block out certain elements in PG-13 movies that I don't want my kids to see? Disney and others  have a problem with that. Where's my right to not have to fast forward and just have the offensive parts bypassed entirely? Especially if Vid Angel goes on top of Netflix; the movie companies are still getting their profit, and the family gets to see the movie the way they want to see it.

It could be a fascinating discussion.

 
TobiasFunke said:
You just asked "why get the government involved" before providing two full paragraphs explaining why people get the government involved.

Once you are reliant until the government to protect your interests, you are beholden to whether the government decides whether your interests are eligible for or worthy of protection under the law.  In this case, they decided that they are. So be it.

But the idea that one person or corporation can request government protection or sanctioning but another person can't challenge their eligibility/worthiness for that protection/sanctioning makes no sense. You're trying to introduce a big government/small government argument into a dispute that takes place entirely within the regulatory framework. It's nonsense. It's akin to saying that a power plant should be able to get a permit but residents can't "weaponize government" to raise their objections to that permit.
Click to expand...
*sigh* Let's try again:

I'm talking solely about what people consider offensive. The government has been told they cannot restrict offensive speech/terms for use in copyrights. Believe it or not, there are plenty of things the federal government isn't supposed to do - see that quaint little notion called the 10th Amendment. 

People can seek protection for their ideas, or as @Ramsay Hunt Experience put it much better - eliminate customer confusion. It just so happens that it ends up benefiting the holder of the patent/copyright.

 
Seems like both sides of the isle would be against demeaning minorities.  Why mention liberals?  Isn't this more of a human decency thing?

 
i am a big proponent of the government regulating banking brohans because when i take something there i want to know it is going to stay there take that to the bank brochachos 

 
Tom Servo said:
*sigh* Let's try again:

I'm talking solely about what people consider offensive. The government has been told they cannot restrict offensive speech/terms for use in copyrights. Believe it or not, there are plenty of things the federal government isn't supposed to do - see that quaint little notion called the 10th Amendment. 

People can seek protection for their ideas, or as @Ramsay Hunt Experience put it much better - eliminate customer confusion. It just so happens that it ends up benefiting the holder of the patent/copyright.
Click to expand...
So people can "weaponize the government" for some things but not others?

I don't really have much of a problem with the decision.  I just think the rhetoric you're using to disparage people who were doing exactly what the (apparently unconstitutional) statute directed them to do is way over the top.  You're trying to shoehorn a big government/small government argument into what is entirely a free speech argument totally unrelated to ones views of the proper role of government.

 
rude classless thugs said:
Not certain how this is necessarily bad news for liberals. This was an unanimous 8-0 decision, so presumably the liberal justices did not have an issue with it. The Redskins trademark is safe, but at some point in the future, the name will be changed (probably when Synder or the NFL realizes that the negative PR outweighs any advantage to the league)
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem like it will happen anytime soon and at least right now there doesn't appear to be very much negative PR.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292 said:
I didn't think there was anybody left defending the nickname.
Click to expand...
You're living in a bubble, then.  There are lots and lots of people out there who think the name is fine and are actively opposed to changing it.  A huge, overwhelming majority of Native Americans do not consider the name offensive.

(If I were Dan Snyder, I would change the name because it's a distraction.  But maybe he prefers that people focus on this issue, as opposed to the team's on-the-field results).     

 
Tom Servo said:
Per the Washington Times story:

I think that a discussion on that would be interesting. Where is that line drawn where a lack of decency constitutes offense? What happens if someone like me wants to watch a certain movie, but wants to use something like Vid Angel to block out certain elements in PG-13 movies that I don't want my kids to see? Disney and others  have a problem with that. Where's my right to not have to fast forward and just have the offensive parts bypassed entirely? Especially if Vid Angel goes on top of Netflix; the movie companies are still getting their profit, and the family gets to see the movie the way they want to see it.

It could be a fascinating discussion.
Click to expand...
This doesn't seem like aConstitutional issue. It's a statutory issue. You're making a derivative work. The only question is whether the courts would create a category of fair use similar to time-shifting. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Am I (we) the problem (AITA) - advice from the collective wisdom of the FFA
2 3
Replies
129
Views
3K
GroveDiesel
GroveDiesel
S
Jury Finds Realtors Conspired to Keep Commissions High
5 6 7
Replies
323
Views
8K
FreeBaGeL
FreeBaGeL
C
Health Insurance Cost Question
Replies
1
Views
243
belljr
belljr

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top