Redskins and other offensive product names

[*bfine32*]

The below is the latest on the Redskins:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-trademark-appeal-from-washington-redskins-150634854.html

I know we kicked this can down the road in the old forum, but just wanted to get updated views.

What are folks thoughts on the Washington Redskins and/or other offensively named products " MY NAPPY HAIR shampoo, ect..."?

I found it to be an unusal dynamic that the Asian band is fighting to keep its name "The Slants".

[Au165]

(10-03-2016, 05:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The below is the latest on the Redskins:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-trademark-appeal-from-washington-redskins-150634854.html

I know we kicked this can down the road in the old forum, but just wanted to get updated views.

What are folks thoughts on the Washington Redskins and/or other offensively named products " MY NAPPY HAIR shampoo, ect..."?

I found it to be an unusal dynamic that the Asian band is fighting to keep its name "The Slants".

The U.S. has over 1000 official towns, city, landmarks with flat out racist names.....seems a bit hypocritical? Chinaman Lagoon and Dago Creek in Arkansas; Wetback Tank, New Mexico; Darkey Springs in Tennessee; and Jew Point in Florida are all real/recognized names of places in the U.S. We are going to tell a private business what they can and can't name a football team, or at least not protect their intellectual property for said team, while having these as U.S. cities and landmarks.

I don't think it is anyone's business what name they trademark as it is up to the customers on how they feel about it. Trademarks should be seen as an extension of the first amendment and in turn you should be able to trademark any kind of language, even hate language.

[Beaker]

Screw political correctness and over-sensitivity.

[StoneTheCrow]

(10-03-2016, 09:26 PM)Beaker Wrote: Screw political correctness and over-sensitivity.

I get the feeling that MOST of America feels this way but that damn squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[*Nately120*]

(10-03-2016, 09:26 PM)Beaker Wrote: Screw political correctness and over-sensitivity.

Screw political correctness, screw the people who get offended, and screw the people who keep getting offended that people keep getting offended.  Everyone just needs to shut up and stop giving a damn what people say. Then again, I'm a straight white male so me not being offended doesn't really carry much water. Oh well.

[*michaelsean*]

Who is the final arbiter? Sure some are obvious, but how is a decision arrived at?

[Rotobeast]

I'm not sure a business should make money off of it.
I'm not sure schools should receive public and government moneys using such a name.

I live less than 1/2 a mile from a high school using the "Redskins" name.

I am part Cherokee.

I really don't think about it much.

I suppose if I were full-blood I may care more.




Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Millhouse]

Personally I dont have any reservations of Redskins being used.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-03-2016, 09:26 PM)Beaker Wrote: Screw political correctness and over-sensitivity.

Does this include those sensitive about political correctness and over-sensitivity?

[GMDino]

(10-03-2016, 09:26 PM)Beaker Wrote: Screw political correctness and over-sensitivity.

This is why I strictly enforce a blacks only water fountain at work.

[Benton]

(10-03-2016, 11:14 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm not sure a business should make money off of it.
.

.

.

.

that's one of my main issues with it.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2016, 09:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: This is why I strictly enforce a blacks only water fountain at work.

But no whites only?  That doesn't seem fair.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2016, 09:12 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But no whites only?  That doesn't seem fair.

They wouldn't use the black only ones...they aren't PC *******. 

[BmorePat87]

I just don't understand why anyone would think a slur is a good team name.

[fredtoast]

I think the name is inappropriate and offensive.

But I don't think that is grounds to deny trademark protection.

People have a right to say offensive things and businesses have a right to use offensive names for their products.

[Au165]

(10-04-2016, 10:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I think the name is inappropriate and offensive.  

But I don't think that is grounds to deny trademark protection.

People have a right to say offensive things and businesses have a right to use offensive names for their products.

Exactly, let the people make the owner of the trademark stop using it. It's funny because what this really does is invite more people to use it now rather than stopping people from using it.

[Benton]

(10-04-2016, 10:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I think the name is inappropriate and offensive.  

But I don't think that is grounds to deny trademark protection.

People have a right to say offensive things and businesses have a right to use offensive names for their products.

It, along with some other trademarks, aren't prohibited, they just aren't protected from use by other people. Snyder's 1st Amendment rights are fully protected, there's no verbage in there about your right to profit off free speech.

(10-04-2016, 10:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: Exactly, let the people make the owner of the trademark stop using it.

Majorities don't always make the best decisions.

[Au165]

(10-04-2016, 12:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Majorities don't always make the best decisions.

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.

[fredtoast]

(10-04-2016, 12:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Snyder's 1st Amendment rights are fully protected, there's no verbage in there about your right to profit off free speech.

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".

[fredtoast]

(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.

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.