Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (2 Viewers)

[thayman]

I don't hear any faux outrage about this anymore. The internet found something new to be offended by.

Eh, everything that's been said has been said. There was a flurry there for a bit while RGIII made them something more than an afterthought but now it's back to the status quo for the last 20 years. The name is very racist, the team ain't changing it until the courts of the league force them to do so, and the franchise is basically irrelevant and almost never appears on national TV so it doesn't come up. When they do happen to get a bit of the spotlight, like last night, there's always new articles and ridiculous new images making the rounds.

You should definitely tell this native American writer that his outrage is "faux," though. I'm sure he'll be totally relieved to learn from you that he actually isn't outraged at all!

Because any Native American's outrage is irrelevant to the situation. This is only about money, Forbes ranks The Washington Redskins as the 3rd most valuable franchise in the NFL and 10th most valuable sports franchise in the world at $2.4 Billion. The only way the name changes is if people who are actually offended would let sponsors of the team know they won't do business with them anymore.

I know that's Dan Snyder's perspective, but I'm not sure I understand your post. Because what? I didn't ask a question. I just pointed out that just because the story has faded from the consciousness of a media and a national audience with short attention spans doesn't mean that the people who cared about it then have somehow stopped caring about it now.

If you really think the story is dead and that people no longer care about it, consider what would happen if (try not to laugh) the Skins made the Super Bowl. It would be one of the dominant stories of the two week leadup, possibly the dominant story.

My point is the name change has nothing and never will have anything to do with Native Americans.

The reasons for the name change have everything to do with Native Americans. Whether it actually happens should have something to do with it as well, but Snyder being Snyder it probably doesn't, so I agree with you there. He's not exactly a person known for doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing. Hell sometimes it seems like he deliberately seeks out the wrong thing.

It should be about Native Americans but it's not. There's too much money involved. It's all about the Benjamins.

 

[Meatwad Reloaded]

I am offended at the use of the term 'redskin' for the name of a football team.

I suggest that he change the name to the Patriettes.

 

[dgreen]

In seasons past, the PA announcer at FedEx Field would say, "FIRST DOWN WAAAAAASSSSHHHHINGTON" whenever they got a first down. This season, he says, "FIRST DOWN REDSKIIIIIINSSSS".

Just a little something I noticed and is actually the type of thing that makes me want them to lose this battle. I have no problem them making a statement or two about the name and keeping the name. What's annoying is the nonstop little crap that only serves as them saying, "We'll do whatever we want and you can't stop us lolz!" Can this organization take the high road at least once?

Not that it matters, but they were saying FIRST DOWN REDSKIIIINSSS last year at the Titans game.

Huh, interesting. I was at that game and didn't notice it, nor did I notice at any other games last season. Maybe not enough first downs or me to pick up on it. Well, whether it changed last year or this year, I think it's related to the name debate.

 

[dgreen]

In my circle of friends who are Skins supporters they all are against a name change and I have to say if they were for the change but still supported the team it would get a chuckle from me to say the least.I get the loyalty and that you have been a life long follower but if you truly are offended by this nickname that is deemed as racist why continue to support it?

Don't watch the games,don't buy merch and don't support anything Snyder is associated with(those that line his pockets).It just screams hypocrisy to me.

Because they aren't offended enough for it to affect their overall relationship with the team. And I don't mean that as an insult or to imply it has to be faux rage. But there are various levels of offense. Like Tobias said, fandom isn't something that can just switch off because your team does something you don't like. It takes a lot to move a devoted fan away from his team.

I bet there were Germans in the 1940s who hated what the Nazis were doing but still loved their country. I really just wanted to make some kind of Snyder/Hitler comparison.

 

[tom22406]

In my circle of friends who are Skins supporters they all are against a name change and I have to say if they were for the change but still supported the team it would get a chuckle from me to say the least.I get the loyalty and that you have been a life long follower but if you truly are offended by this nickname that is deemed as racist why continue to support it?

Don't watch the games,don't buy merch and don't support anything Snyder is associated with(those that line his pockets).It just screams hypocrisy to me.

Because they aren't offended enough for it to affect their overall relationship with the team. And I don't mean that as an insult or to imply it has to be faux rage. But there are various levels of offense. Like Tobias said, fandom isn't something that can just switch off because your team does something you don't like. It takes a lot to move a devoted fan away from his team.

I bet there were Germans in the 1940s who hated what the Nazis were doing but still loved their country. I really just wanted to make some kind of Snyder/Hitler comparison.

I guess I should start asking for how highly offended people are in this day and age.So many things get people worked up it's really hard to tell the level but for me anything racist is pretty high on my list.Just my opinion.

 

[dgreen]

In my circle of friends who are Skins supporters they all are against a name change and I have to say if they were for the change but still supported the team it would get a chuckle from me to say the least.I get the loyalty and that you have been a life long follower but if you truly are offended by this nickname that is deemed as racist why continue to support it?

Don't watch the games,don't buy merch and don't support anything Snyder is associated with(those that line his pockets).It just screams hypocrisy to me.

Because they aren't offended enough for it to affect their overall relationship with the team. And I don't mean that as an insult or to imply it has to be faux rage. But there are various levels of offense. Like Tobias said, fandom isn't something that can just switch off because your team does something you don't like. It takes a lot to move a devoted fan away from his team.

I bet there were Germans in the 1940s who hated what the Nazis were doing but still loved their country. I really just wanted to make some kind of Snyder/Hitler comparison.

I guess I should start asking for how highly offended people are in this day and age.So many things get people worked up it's really hard to tell the level but for me anything racist is pretty high on my list.Just my opinion.

Do you think there are multiple levels of racism? Or are all things racist of equal value?

And I should also say that I wasn't thinking about how Snyder is Jewish when I made that Snyder/Hitler comment. Hopefully nobody thinks I was making that comment based on him being Jewish.

 

[TobiasFunke]

In my circle of friends who are Skins supporters they all are against a name change and I have to say if they were for the change but still supported the team it would get a chuckle from me to say the least.I get the loyalty and that you have been a life long follower but if you truly are offended by this nickname that is deemed as racist why continue to support it?

Don't watch the games,don't buy merch and don't support anything Snyder is associated with(those that line his pockets).It just screams hypocrisy to me.

Because they aren't offended enough for it to affect their overall relationship with the team. And I don't mean that as an insult or to imply it has to be faux rage. But there are various levels of offense. Like Tobias said, fandom isn't something that can just switch off because your team does something you don't like. It takes a lot to move a devoted fan away from his team.

I bet there were Germans in the 1940s who hated what the Nazis were doing but still loved their country. I really just wanted to make some kind of Snyder/Hitler comparison.

I guess I should start asking for how highly offended people are in this day and age.So many things get people worked up it's really hard to tell the level but for me anything racist is pretty high on my list.Just my opinion.

I think the name itself is racist but I don't think the team is racist because they refuse to change it. I just think they're stupid and insensitive. That's annoying and off-putting as a fan but it's hardly a dealbreaker. Frankly I'd have a harder time getting over my team employing a Greg Hardy or a Ray Lewis after they committed their crimes, or stealing other teams' play sheets, or even bilking taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars for a stadium. That is some sleazy sleazy stuff. The name is awful but it's just a name. I just don't buy the merchandise and I lobby passionately for them to change it whenever I can, that's good enough for me.

Also, rooting for this team is one of my first memories of childhood. When I think of my dad and brother one of the first things I remember is tuning in for this old half-hour weekday studio show they used to do during the 80s and chanting "we want Dallas!" along with the audience. It's hard to shake something like that just because of a name, no matter how much I don't like it.

 

[tom22406]

Just based upon your replies I would guess your outrage meter is at about a 4 or 5 Tobias.Enough to care and attempt to inform people but otherwise still support the team emotionally because they are your team and you root more for the players.If you feel that you are doing enough that's good for me because I'm sure if I were a lifelong Skins fan it would be tough to try and root for another team given how invested you have become.For me though I don't tolerate racism,especially a team nickname that has been flaunting it for decades without two ####s being given by ownership.No matter the level of racism,it still just rubs me the wrong way and that's on me so I choose to not support the team or go to any games no matter how many times I'm asked to go.I refuse to line Dannyboy's pockets with any more money and even that is a tough one because I will admit I do enjoy watching the train wreck they have become on the field so an occasional game on t.v. is as far as I go.

I side more with rooting for the team over players in general.Of course I always have my favorites(you well know my Caps man crushes)but the team always comes first because players act like idiots on a regular basis and they tend to change teams more than I care to count.

 

[Swing 51]

Trump: Don't need Redskins name change

Donald Trump tells the New York Times he agrees with rival Jeb Bush's support for the Redskins' embattled nickname. "Honestly, I don't think they should change the name, unless the owner wanted to," adding "I know Indians that are extremely proud of that name."

Per ESPN

 

[Das Boot]

California to ban 'Redskins' for school sports, keep Confederate building names

 

[Leviathan]

I am 1/4th Blackfoot. Suck on that Elizabeth Warren! The "Redskins" moniker doesn't offend me in the least. Am I an uncle Geronimo, or are the people offended a bunch of Starbucks sipping, politically correct vajayjays?

 

[Henry Ford]

I am 1/4th Blackfoot. Suck on that Elizabeth Warren! The "Redskins" moniker doesn't offend me in the least. Am I an uncle Geronimo, or are the people offended a bunch of Starbucks sipping, politically correct vajayjays?

Good call. If you're 1/4 Native American and they don't all agree with you, they must be defective.

 

[Leviathan]

I am 1/4th Blackfoot. Suck on that Elizabeth Warren! The "Redskins" moniker doesn't offend me in the least. Am I an uncle Geronimo, or are the people offended a bunch of Starbucks sipping, politically correct vajayjays?

Good call. If you're 1/4 Native American and they don't all agree with you, they must be defective.

Defective? I respect other points of view. My post is a question. Significant native blood in your heritage, or are you fishing?

 

[avoiding injuries]

I am 1/4th Blackfoot. Suck on that Elizabeth Warren! The "Redskins" moniker doesn't offend me in the least. Am I an uncle Geronimo, or are the people offended a bunch of Starbucks sipping, politically correct vajayjays?

Good call. If you're 1/4 Native American and they don't all agree with you, they must be defective.

Defective? I respect other points of view. My post is a question. Significant native blood in your heritage, or are you fishing?

If even one person is offended, that's too many. In this case it's two.

 

[Henry Ford]

I am 1/4th Blackfoot. Suck on that Elizabeth Warren! The "Redskins" moniker doesn't offend me in the least. Am I an uncle Geronimo, or are the people offended a bunch of Starbucks sipping, politically correct vajayjays?

Good call. If you're 1/4 Native American and they don't all agree with you, they must be defective.

Defective? I respect other points of view. My post is a question. Significant native blood in your heritage, or are you fishing?

It's a false dichotomy. You can be perfectly reasonable in not being offended and other people can be perfectly reasonable in being offended.

 

[BowieMercs]

Daniel Snyder can't see that the future is here:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13724289/washington-redskins-name-change-inevitable

Screw them!!!GO REDSKINS!!!!!!!!!!

really is sad that some people are so damn attached to the name of a ####### sports team. channel your anger and energy into something worthwhile. please

You do realize that posty absolutely hates the home team in general and the Redskins in particular, don't you?

What's the creel limit on this thread again?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

 

[dparker713]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

Well, that requires you to classify trademarks as speech. Trademarks are more akin to symbols or a collection of symbols designed to signify to a consumer the origin of a product or service. And sure, symbols can be speech, but I don't think all symbols classify as speech. I guess my main problem with your argument is how to fit trade dress into it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

Seems like there's an obvious solution here. The Skins could change their name to one of the already protected trademarks cited in the brief and just buy out the holder of that trademark. The Washington Redneck Army, the Washington Dangerous Negros, the Washington Slutseekers, the Washington Ghetto Booties ... I would be proud to support any of them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Its an interesting question. Obviously we allow for commercially based speech to be trademark protected, which calls for government license, what we don't do is allow government control over which content is protectable and which is not. This reminds me of the license plate cases, I can't recall how those turned out. Iirc the USSC said that TX could reject sons of the confederacy plates for instance, seems similar.

 

[larch]

Still no.

Stay strong Dan. Keep it the Redskins.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

Seems like there's an obvious solution here. The Skins could change their name to one of the already protected trademarks cited in the brief and just buy out the holder of that trademark. The Washington Redneck Army, the Washington Dangerous Negros, the Washington Slutseekers, the Washington Ghetto Booties ... I would be proud to support any of them.

THE WASHINGTON OCTO####, for a long lasting, fighting team

Its an interesting question. Obviously we allow for commercially based speech to be trademark protected, which calls for government license, what we don't do is allow government control over which content is protectable and which is not. This reminds me of the license plate cases, I can't recall how those turned out. Iirc the USSC said that TX could reject sons of the confederacy plates for instance, seems similar.

Yes we do. That's why the team in challenging the constitutionality of the Lanham Act. Because the procedure to cancel a disparaging mark is baked right into the act.

The District Court, like you, analogized to the license plate cases, holding that the government could control what would be viewed as the government's speech. I think that's a goofy rationale.

The question isn't whether the government's registration could be interpreted as an endorsement of the mark. I think Judge Lee is dead wrong on that, and its irrelevant.

It's whether the government has the right to decline to use its power to grant a monopoly in commercial speech using a mark when someone has successfully shown that the mark is disparaging. The registration of trademarks themselves are far more of a restriction on speech than the cancellation of such trademarks on the grounds of disparagement. The Redskins mark allows Daniel Snyder to use the power of the federal government to prevent anyone else from using the term Redskins in commerce. Because the only justification for such a monopoly is consumer protection, the government should have latitude to determine when that monopoly is granted.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Daniel Snyder can't see that the future is here:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13724289/washington-redskins-name-change-inevitable

Screw them!!!GO REDSKINS!!!!!!!!!!

really is sad that some people are so damn attached to the name of a ####### sports team. channel your anger and energy into something worthwhile. please

You do realize that posty absolutely hates the home team in general and the Redskins in particular, don't you?

So he's just a fan of casual racism?

.

 

[larch]

Daniel Snyder can't see that the future is here:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13724289/washington-redskins-name-change-inevitable

Screw them!!!GO REDSKINS!!!!!!!!!!

really is sad that some people are so damn attached to the name of a ####### sports team. channel your anger and energy into something worthwhile. please

You do realize that posty absolutely hates the home team in general and the Redskins in particular, don't you?

So he's just a fan of casual racism?

.

It isn't racist.

 

[CBusAlex]

So he's just a fan of casual racism?

.

It isn't racist.

Heritage not hate, bro.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This Dan Steinberg column discussing the issue with various people whose trademarks were cited in the brief is hilarious.

 

[dparker713]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

Seems like there's an obvious solution here. The Skins could change their name to one of the already protected trademarks cited in the brief and just buy out the holder of that trademark. The Washington Redneck Army, the Washington Dangerous Negros, the Washington Slutseekers, the Washington Ghetto Booties ... I would be proud to support any of them.

THE WASHINGTON OCTO####, for a long lasting, fighting team

Its an interesting question. Obviously we allow for commercially based speech to be trademark protected, which calls for government license, what we don't do is allow government control over which content is protectable and which is not. This reminds me of the license plate cases, I can't recall how those turned out. Iirc the USSC said that TX could reject sons of the confederacy plates for instance, seems similar.

Yes we do. That's why the team in challenging the constitutionality of the Lanham Act. Because the procedure to cancel a disparaging mark is baked right into the act.

The District Court, like you, analogized to the license plate cases, holding that the government could control what would be viewed as the government's speech. I think that's a goofy rationale.

The question isn't whether the government's registration could be interpreted as an endorsement of the mark. I think Judge Lee is dead wrong on that, and its irrelevant.

It's whether the government has the right to decline to use its power to grant a monopoly in commercial speech using a mark when someone has successfully shown that the mark is disparaging. The registration of trademarks themselves are far more of a restriction on speech than the cancellation of such trademarks on the grounds of disparagement. The Redskins mark allows Daniel Snyder to use the power of the federal government to prevent anyone else from using the term Redskins in commerce. Because the only justification for such a monopoly is consumer protection, the government should have latitude to determine when that monopoly is granted.

Seems more like the case should rest on estoppel grounds. If the government never exercises their right to restrict content, why are they now allowed to restrict the Redskins?

 

[Sebowski]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

Seems like there's an obvious solution here. The Skins could change their name to one of the already protected trademarks cited in the brief and just buy out the holder of that trademark. The Washington Redneck Army, Stupid. the Washington Dangerous Negros Come on, man, the Washington Slutseekers Let's be serious here, the Washington Ghetto Booties Ok, I'm in ... I would be proud to support any of them.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

Seems like there's an obvious solution here. The Skins could change their name to one of the already protected trademarks cited in the brief and just buy out the holder of that trademark. The Washington Redneck Army, the Washington Dangerous Negros, the Washington Slutseekers, the Washington Ghetto Booties ... I would be proud to support any of them.

THE WASHINGTON OCTO####, for a long lasting, fighting team

Its an interesting question. Obviously we allow for commercially based speech to be trademark protected, which calls for government license, what we don't do is allow government control over which content is protectable and which is not. This reminds me of the license plate cases, I can't recall how those turned out. Iirc the USSC said that TX could reject sons of the confederacy plates for instance, seems similar.

Yes we do. That's why the team in challenging the constitutionality of the Lanham Act. Because the procedure to cancel a disparaging mark is baked right into the act.

The District Court, like you, analogized to the license plate cases, holding that the government could control what would be viewed as the government's speech. I think that's a goofy rationale.

The question isn't whether the government's registration could be interpreted as an endorsement of the mark. I think Judge Lee is dead wrong on that, and its irrelevant.

It's whether the government has the right to decline to use its power to grant a monopoly in commercial speech using a mark when someone has successfully shown that the mark is disparaging. The registration of trademarks themselves are far more of a restriction on speech than the cancellation of such trademarks on the grounds of disparagement. The Redskins mark allows Daniel Snyder to use the power of the federal government to prevent anyone else from using the term Redskins in commerce. Because the only justification for such a monopoly is consumer protection, the government should have latitude to determine when that monopoly is granted.

Seems more like the case should rest on estoppel grounds. If the government never exercises their right to restrict content, why are they now allowed to restrict the Redskins?

There is no estoppel argument. The statute grants any disparaged group the right to challenge a registration at any time. The original plaintiffs in Harbro lost, in part, due to laches (because they could have challenged registration earlier as an equitable matter). These are different, younger plaintiffs who couldn't have. From my time skimming the brief, the team is still making a laches argument, but it's a complete afterthought. You generally don't put your winning argument on page 57.

The meat of the brief is a full-frontal assault on the constitutionality of Section 2. Part of that is dictated by the decision below, but I still think its telling that the strategy has shifted away from "this isn't offensive" and more toward "it's unconstitutional to punish our offensive speech."

EDIT: And FWIW, the government has cancelled marks after disparagement hearings in the past. Crazy Horse Malt Liquor is an example from the 90s. Doughboy Condoms is an example from earlier in the 20th century.

 

[Sebowski]

I don't think I need to go over my stance on the name. It's a team name for me. No need to rehash.

I do cringe a little and think it's kind of racist when Native Americans are called anything with "Indian" in it. Some ####### thought he was in India and now these people are stuck with this? Weirds me out a bit. Serious.

 

[Sebowski]

This Dan Steinberg column discussing the issue with various people whose trademarks were cited in the brief is hilarious.

“We’re using the name to bring light to women’s issues, so it actually serves a purpose beyond just offending people,” she said. “C’mon. It’s not the same. It’s not the same. They’re trying to defend this horrible name, in a way that’s just getting ridiculous.”

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The most interesting part of the article was the owner of the "Cracker ###" mark. He appears to be the only one of those mark holders who actually did face a disparagement hearing with the TTAB. And he won despite his concession that the mark was a racial slur.

A lot of the marks mentioned weren't really disparaging (Edible Crotchless Gummi Underwear or whatever). They were being used to directly counter Judge Lee's position that registration amounted to a government endorsement of speech (the Obama administration LOVES Edible Crotchless Gummi Underwear!). But the Cracker ### mark appeared to be an actual disparagement case. I can't distinguish the treatment of those marks except to speculate that whoever challenged the Cracker ### mark did a crappy job of submitting proof of disparagement.

 

[dparker713]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

Seems like there's an obvious solution here. The Skins could change their name to one of the already protected trademarks cited in the brief and just buy out the holder of that trademark. The Washington Redneck Army, the Washington Dangerous Negros, the Washington Slutseekers, the Washington Ghetto Booties ... I would be proud to support any of them.

THE WASHINGTON OCTO####, for a long lasting, fighting team

Its an interesting question. Obviously we allow for commercially based speech to be trademark protected, which calls for government license, what we don't do is allow government control over which content is protectable and which is not. This reminds me of the license plate cases, I can't recall how those turned out. Iirc the USSC said that TX could reject sons of the confederacy plates for instance, seems similar.

Yes we do. That's why the team in challenging the constitutionality of the Lanham Act. Because the procedure to cancel a disparaging mark is baked right into the act.

The District Court, like you, analogized to the license plate cases, holding that the government could control what would be viewed as the government's speech. I think that's a goofy rationale.

The question isn't whether the government's registration could be interpreted as an endorsement of the mark. I think Judge Lee is dead wrong on that, and its irrelevant.

It's whether the government has the right to decline to use its power to grant a monopoly in commercial speech using a mark when someone has successfully shown that the mark is disparaging. The registration of trademarks themselves are far more of a restriction on speech than the cancellation of such trademarks on the grounds of disparagement. The Redskins mark allows Daniel Snyder to use the power of the federal government to prevent anyone else from using the term Redskins in commerce. Because the only justification for such a monopoly is consumer protection, the government should have latitude to determine when that monopoly is granted.

Seems more like the case should rest on estoppel grounds. If the government never exercises their right to restrict content, why are they now allowed to restrict the Redskins?

There is no estoppel argument. The statute grants any disparaged group the right to challenge a registration at any time. The original plaintiffs in Harbro lost, in part, due to laches (because they could have challenged registration earlier as an equitable matter). These are different, younger plaintiffs who couldn't have. From my time skimming the brief, the team is still making a laches argument, but it's a complete afterthought. You generally don't put your winning argument on page 57.

The meat of the brief is a full-frontal assault on the constitutionality of Section 2. Part of that is dictated by the decision below, but I still think its telling that the strategy has shifted away from "this isn't offensive" and more toward "it's unconstitutional to punish our offensive speech."

EDIT: And FWIW, the government has cancelled marks after disparagement hearings in the past. Crazy Horse Malt Liquor is an example from the 90s. Doughboy Condoms is an example from earlier in the 20th century.

Don't have time to read a brief I'm not working on and my trademark work is infrequent, but that argument seems to be a rather long shot to me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

Seems like there's an obvious solution here. The Skins could change their name to one of the already protected trademarks cited in the brief and just buy out the holder of that trademark. The Washington Redneck Army, the Washington Dangerous Negros, the Washington Slutseekers, the Washington Ghetto Booties ... I would be proud to support any of them.

THE WASHINGTON OCTO####, for a long lasting, fighting team

Its an interesting question. Obviously we allow for commercially based speech to be trademark protected, which calls for government license, what we don't do is allow government control over which content is protectable and which is not. This reminds me of the license plate cases, I can't recall how those turned out. Iirc the USSC said that TX could reject sons of the confederacy plates for instance, seems similar.

Yes we do. That's why the team in challenging the constitutionality of the Lanham Act. Because the procedure to cancel a disparaging mark is baked right into the act.

The District Court, like you, analogized to the license plate cases, holding that the government could control what would be viewed as the government's speech. I think that's a goofy rationale.

The question isn't whether the government's registration could be interpreted as an endorsement of the mark. I think Judge Lee is dead wrong on that, and its irrelevant.

It's whether the government has the right to decline to use its power to grant a monopoly in commercial speech using a mark when someone has successfully shown that the mark is disparaging. The registration of trademarks themselves are far more of a restriction on speech than the cancellation of such trademarks on the grounds of disparagement. The Redskins mark allows Daniel Snyder to use the power of the federal government to prevent anyone else from using the term Redskins in commerce. Because the only justification for such a monopoly is consumer protection, the government should have latitude to determine when that monopoly is granted.

I agree with the point that the license plate situation is not an actual endorsement (I didn't actually say that myself), but I also think that the state accepting and declining a monopoly on a particular speech as a matter of license are two sides of the same coin. That's not unlike the ACA/Sebelius argument where it was pointed out that the state had been using tax incentives for a very long time to influence behavior and so a mandate tax used to discourage behavior is no different, they are flip sides of the same coin. They stem from the same power.

Saying "I'm not not accepting something, I'm just rejecting it" is a tautological fallacy.

eta - btw Tobias has won me over on this based on one of his posts. I like to think I'm a hard sell too. But I also think the license plate argument is a good one, it was decided by the USSC so just go with it, it's a winning argument.

 

[njherdfan]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

I'm not a trademark lawyer, but aren't all of those other marks they cite too irrelevant because no one challenged them? TTAB obviously initially granted the "Redskins" mark as well, and now it's acting on a petition opposing it. I have no doubt that petitions opposing just about all of the marks cited in the brief would succeed as well.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So the Skins filed their opening brief in the Fourth Circuit today. Most of the media coverage is focusing on the hysterical list of offensive trademarks that the Redskins are highlighting as going unchallenged (my personal favorite is CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, because that's a mark that you're going to want to protect). But not many are pointing out that the reason why the Skins are highlighting these marks is because they are moving away from relying on the argument that the TTAB's ruling on disparagement was wrong on the facts (they make the argument, but they don't lead with it).

Instead, they're leading with the argument that Section 2 of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. We'll see how that argument goes. One reason why I've never liked that argument is that trademarks themselves are restraints on speech. They give a mark holder, like the Redskins, a government enforced monopoly on the use of the word Redskins in commerce. So it's hard, IMO, to argue that a decision that would prevent the team from invoking the federal law to stop others from using the term Redskins in commerce represents a restraint on speech.

I'm not a trademark lawyer, but aren't all of those other marks they cite too irrelevant because no one challenged them? TTAB obviously initially granted the "Redskins" mark as well, and now it's acting on a petition opposing it. I have no doubt that petitions opposing just about all of the marks cited in the brief would succeed as well.

Yes and no? They're irrelevant (IMO) to the actual issue in the case (with the caveat that Steinberg's article seems to suggest at least one of the marks was, in fact, challenged). They're not irrelevant in the respect that they rebut the reasoning used in the court below. When the Team says that nobody believes that the government endorses Anal Fantasy products, I can't say that I disagree.

I think there's a difference between saying that the government may refuse offensive license plates because it can control its own instrumentalities and fora by which it lets private citizens conduct speech (as in license plates) and saying that the government can control its own instrumentalities and fora by which it lets private citizens conduct speech because the use of those instrumentalities converts private speech into government sponsored speech.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Prominent First Amendment scholars have written an amicus supporting the Team's position. Story here.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Native American leader of group offended by Redskins name dresses in blackface for Halloween.

LINK

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

OK, that's funny.

 

[(HULK)]

I originally voted that they should change the name because I'm just sick of the conversation.

I never anticipated the impending hilarity of the past week. I was wrong.

But, now that we've had that hilarity, we should probably change it to Red Clouds or something already.

 

[zDragon]

Why are some of you guys fighting this so much?

Seems strange to me too. It's obviously up to Snyder and the NFL. People are free to root for another team if they find the name offensive.

I was actually referring to the people fighting against the name change. Though the ones fighting for it deserve from questions about their use of time and energy as well IMO.

Sure, I can see how I would owe a bunch of strangers some answers as to how I choose to use my time and energy on the internet. And if anyone is justified in questioning others' use of time and energy on this message board it's you, Tim.

Anyway, I've actually answered this question a couple time, but here it is again. I grew up rooting for the Redskins and the other 2 (now 3) DC sports teams. Following the local teams with my buddies is a huge part of my life. Now I'm how sharing and passing that on to my young children; I've already had some fun times with them going to/watching games and I hope to do it a lot more as they get old enough to appreciate it. And I hate that one of the team's names is a source of embarrassment for the fans and the city (I know it's not for some, but it is for me and I'm willing to bet that 20 years from now it will be for everyone but a handful of stubborn old weirdos). It honestly takes away from my enjoyment of following the team a little bit, just as I assume you would feel a little weird if the Steelers were called the Kikes or the Wetbacks or something similarly offensive to another ethnicity.

I want to enjoy being a fan of the team with my kids, and buy them cute little NFL team merchandise for them like I do with the Wiz, Nats and Caps. But I don't because I don't want to be the kind of person who chooses to broadcast ethnic slurs on a three year old girl's t-shirt.

Have you cut ties with the team or something or just not introducing them to your children?

Can't do either. Been a Skins and DC sports fan all my life, couldn't quit them if I tried. They could walk out Week 1 in Nazi uniforms and as long as those uniforms were still burgundy and gold and it still said Washington on the scoreboard I'd have a hard time not pulling for them. I just don't buy the merchandise for myself or my kids. And I don't care about them nearly as much as I used to, I guess. I think part of that is the name, but it's hard to figure out how much is the name, how much is resentment of and frustration with the organization for many other reasons, and how much is finally having other worthwhile sports teams in town.

If you have not cut ties then you support the name

It is easy to talk and insult others on a message board but a completely different animal to back the cause.

If you truly believed you would get rid of everything Redskins related, signed balls, jerseys, helmets and burn it.

If you truly believed you would not watch the games or listen on the radio.

All of this puts money in the pockets of the owners.

The only thing I see is you wanting to insult others who do not share your views, yet you don't even support your on views.

 

[JZilla]

Burn it!

 

[TobiasFunke]

Burn it!

Now I kind of wish I did have some Redskins paraphernalia.

"What the hell are you doing??!??!?!"

"Sorry, honey. A guy on the internet said I have to burn all this stuff because I don't like the team's name."

 

[JZilla]

I'm sure you'll think of something to burn

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

They should change it now, while people have forgotten they are even in the NFL. That way, if they ever become relevant again, in say two or three decades, the matter will be well in the rearview mirror.

If I didn't see this thread on the first page from time to time I would have long since forgotten they were even in the league.

Sad, I seem to recall them being awesome 30 years or so ago.

 

[zDragon]

Burn it!

Now I kind of wish I did have some Redskins paraphernalia.

"What the hell are you doing??!??!?!"

"Sorry, honey. A guy on the internet said I have to burn all this stuff because I don't like the team's name."

I don't understand your response.

You said you wouldn't want racist slang on your daughters clothing but you would be ok leaving it in your house? Why wouldn't you destroy it if you owned it?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Burn it!

Now I kind of wish I did have some Redskins paraphernalia. "What the hell are you doing??!??!?!"

"Sorry, honey. A guy on the internet said I have to burn all this stuff because I don't like the team's name."

And her response would have been...." Why would you listen to that guy.....you've been a condescending ### for years on the Internet.

 

[Parrothead]

I'm sure you'll think of something to burn

just don't burn your hot dog (sandwich).. that would be a shame

 

[Chaka]

Daniel Snyder can't see that the future is here:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13724289/washington-redskins-name-change-inevitable

Screw them!!!GO REDSKINS!!!!!!!!!!

really is sad that some people are so damn attached to the name of a ####### sports team. channel your anger and energy into something worthwhile. please

You do realize that posty absolutely hates the home team in general and the Redskins in particular, don't you?

So he's just a fan of casual racism?

.

It isn't racist.

Of course it is.

 

[larch]

Daniel Snyder can't see that the future is here:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13724289/washington-redskins-name-change-inevitable

Screw them!!!GO REDSKINS!!!!!!!!!!

really is sad that some people are so damn attached to the name of a ####### sports team. channel your anger and energy into something worthwhile. please

You do realize that posty absolutely hates the home team in general and the Redskins in particular, don't you?

So he's just a fan of casual racism?

.

It isn't racist.

Of course it is.

Yeah, not really.