Redskins and other offensive product names

[Benton]

(10-04-2016, 12:13 PM)Au165 Wrote: Neither do small groups speaking for larger groups. As a country though, we have agreed that majorities in most cases should get to make the decisions unless it becomes an issue of safety or liberties.

We're a representative democracy. We've agreed that chosen minorities in most cases should get to make the decisions based on their belief/interpretation/education. Our courts, legislature, your town council... they're all representative democracies.

Also, the safety issue is one concern over disparaging terms. When you lump a group of people in together and label them with subversive terms, you're furthering the idea that their contributions to their society, or their quality of life and rights, are inferior to others. 

(10-04-2016, 01:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'd argue that denying his speech the same protection of all other speech is "abridging" his rights.  

"Abridging" is a much lower standard than "prohibiting".

His speech is protected. His ability to benefit financially may be abridged, but that's not the same as a 1st Amendment issue.

[hollodero]

(10-04-2016, 01:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: My point is that we can't let laws be made that effect free speech.  Native Americans might be offended by the name, but none of them are being denied any rights or liberties by Wahington's use of the name.

I think it is wrong for them to use the name, but I don't think they should be denied trademark protection for it.

What if they were called the Washington "N-Words". Would that be reason to deny them trademark protection.

And if it were, why is "Redskins" more appropriate. 

[fredtoast]

For anyone who thinks it is okay to deny the Redskins trademark protection, what do you think about copyright protection for any books, movies, or songs that contain offensive material?

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2016, 01:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: What if they were called the Washington "N-Words". Would that be reason to deny them trademark protection.

No.

[Au165]

(10-04-2016, 01:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: My point is that we can't let laws be made that effect free speech.  Native Americans might be offended by the name, but none of them are being denied any rights or liberties by Wahington's use of the name.

I think it is wrong for them to use the name, but I don't think they should be denied trademark protection for it.

....I know. I am actually on your side for a change. My point was let the majority vote with their dollars. Benton had mentioned the majority making bad decisions.

[*bfine32*]

I think he should be allowed to trademark and benefit from his product.

It would be up to the people to boycott the product.

Hell there are some that don't think Redskins is the most racist name of a sports franchise in DC

[Au165]

(10-04-2016, 04:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think he should be allowed to trademark and benefit from his product.

It would be up to the people to boycott the product.

Me, Fred, and Bfine agree on something! This is truly a special day.

[*bfine32*]

(10-04-2016, 04:53 PM)Au165 Wrote: Me, Fred, and Bfine agree on something! This is truly a special day.

This makes me quite nervous.

WTS, there may be a way the league could pressure them to change; I don't see how the courts could.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

It's a racial slur and offensive to some, no doubt about it. Personally, I think that Snyder should change it, but he's a stubborn old man and resistant to change. Oh well.

[Benton]

(10-04-2016, 02:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: For anyone who thinks it is okay to deny the Redskins trademark protection, what do you think about copyright protection for any books, movies, or songs that contain offensive material?

trademark laws aren't the same as first amendment rights. And even in the case of first amendment rights, the scotus has revoked protection when looking at a work as a whole and determining it lacks any serious literary, artistic or scientific value. Although I dont think that applies, since it's a trademark issue and not a first amendment one.