Posted on 06/19/2014 8:16:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Anyone deemed politically incorrect is now outside the protection of the law.
Like most people, I haven’t been all that interested in the controversy over whether the name of the Washington Redskins is offensive. Personally, I’m more offended that Washington, DC, has become the kind of megalopolis that can support an NFL team. If I had my way, it would go back to being a humid, swampy backwater with impassable mud roads. Pierre L’Enfant has much to answer for.
But I think everyone should be terrified by the new ruling by the US Patent Office cancelling the team’s trademark.
The ruling was based on a dubious argument that “redskins” is a slur against Native Americans. Well, then maybe we’d better rename the state of Oklahoma, which drew its name from Choctaw words that mean “red people.” Or maybe we should petition the US Army to decommission the attack helicopter it named after a people it defeated in 1886. Then again, forget I mentioned it. I don’t want to give anyone ideas.
This name-bullying has become a kind of sport for self-aggrandizing political activists, because if you can force everyone to change the name of something—a sports team, a city, an entire race of people—it demonstrates your power. This is true even if it makes no sense and especially if it makes no sense. How much more powerful are you if you can force people to change a name for no reason other than because they’re afraid you will vilify them?
Given the equivocal history of the term “redskins” and the differing opinions—among Native Americans as well as everyone else—over whether it is offensive, this was a subjective judgment. (One observer suggests a list of other sports names that could just as plausibly be considered offensive.) When an issue is subjective, it would be wise for the government not to take a stand and let private persuasion and market pressure sort it out.
Ah, but there’s the rub, isn’t it? This ruling happened precisely because the campaign against the Redskins has failed in the court of public opinion. The issue has become the hobby horse of a small group of lefty commentators and politicians in DC, while regular Washingtonians, the people who make up the team’s base of fans and customers, are largely indifferent. So the left resorted to one of its favorite fallbacks. If the people can’t be persuaded, use the bureaucracy—in this case, two political appointees on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
That’s what is disturbing about this ruling. Our system of government depends on the impartial administration of the laws by the executive. In this case, executive officials declared that a private company doesn’t deserve the protection of the law: if the ruling survives an appeal in the courts, the federal government will stop prosecuting violations of the team’s intellectual property rights, potentially costing it millions of dollars.
This ruling isn’t a slippery slope. It’s a slope we’ve already slid down: bureaucrats in Washington are now empowered to make subjective decrees about what is offensive and what will be tolerated, based on pressure from a small clique of Washington insiders. Anyone who runs afoul of these decrees, anyone branded as regressive and politically incorrect, is declared outside the protection of the federal government.
That this is happening, and that we have no idea where it will stop, is what should terrify us—even if, like me, you don’t particularly care one way or the other about the Washington Redskins.
Bookmark
I find it hard to embrace the abstract and abandon the concrete.
Exactly.
I think I heard ths some gay group is getting ready to go after the Rams and the Packers.
Just a rumor for now.
Why is the name Redskins disparaging? Is the Red Man ashamed of his skin color?
You mean your opinion about this is based on whether or not you’re a Washington Redskins fan? That seems pretty shallow.
You’re not going to phase me. I’m a “Redskins fan” in the sense that this team and its logo have been familiar to me for lo these many years without any suggestion of offense. How about the logo itself? It’s entirely dignified. Now suddenly I’m to be stricken with PC madness? Not gonna happen!
This is a major threat to free speech and also to property rights.
Why is it that it took all the way to comment # 28 for the real issue to arise. This is a property rights issue.
The trademarks and symbology of the Wahington Redskins are registered in the USPTO as belonging to the owners of the Redskins organization, just as title to my home is registered in the county recorder's office where I live. If someone in the USPTO can say "not anymore", then what prevents someone in my county, or yours, from saying the same "not anymore" about our real estate?
Property rights are one thing that has set this country apart from the very beginning. In early drafts of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson had written that men were endowed with rights to "life, liberty and property." This was later revised to "pursuit of happiness" over concerns that it glorified America's "original sin" of slavery.
So as far as I can tell, the Redskins logo is still protected, the team name is not (nor am I sure it ever should have been), and the symbolic victory is complete.As for the whole controversy in Indian Country, I'm sure you could poll 20 different American Indians sporting redskins logo wear and not one could tell you the team record or even the normal starting quarterback. This is, and continues to be an effort by those outside of the 'res' and is one of those normal symbolic victories that liberals continue to run with. Meanwhile, reservations continue to ban abortions, do not recognize same sex marriages, even those which have been approved in the state where the reservation is, yet continue to support the party that endeavors to make them into even more dependent people while ignoring the party that brought the most prosperity to Indian Country through the Indian Gaming Act (Ronald Reagan and the republicans.)
Anyway, gotta go, the tribal leadership is again buying votes for the up coming election.
It’s an attack on free speech.
Period.
End of sentence.
The article says “Congress shall pass no law”.
And what did Congress just do?
You mean they DON'T already do this in America?
I suppose the Skins would be a good name but can't imagine what the mascot would look like....
And what did Congress just do?
Congress didn't do it. Our slimy executive branch did it.
Congress established the USPTO, true. But they didn't imagine the scum the sheeple would elect.
This board cited a law passed by Congress about not offending others.
Change it to the Washington Pale Faces.
See if anyone gives a rip.
From a lesser known clause in a document from 1776: "He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us."
The effect is much the same for a nation cast adrift from law.
Yeah, but under that law, they earlier granted the trademark. If they later change their mind, then it should be deemed a "taking", to be compensated at the ten-digit level by the Sheeple.
I like yours best.
The Washington Palefaces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.