Posted on 08/07/2007 12:57:59 PM PDT by Trust but Verify
LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a filly can't be named "Sally Hemings" after Thomas Jefferson's most famous slave and reputed lover.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that the Jockey Club can legally bar horse owner Garrett Redmond from naming his 4-year-old horse after Hemings.
Judge Alice Batchelder, writing for the three-judge panel, said Redmond has other options that may be approved by the Jockey Club, which forbids horse owners from using names of famous or notorious people without special permission. The club's rules also say that "names considered in poor taste; or names that may be offensive to religious, political or ethnic groups" won't be approved.
"To be sure, the First Amendment protects horse owners' rights to free speech, and we do not foreclose Mr. Redmond indiscriminately from asserting that right, but the right to free speech is not absolute in all contexts," Batchelder wrote.
The Jockey Club is a private organization designated by Kentucky to track and approve names of race horses. Without an approved name, a horse cannot race at a Kentucky track.
The horse, now known as "Awaiting Justice," ran at Churchill Downs on July 1 and at Ellis Park in Henderson on July 25. She did not finish in the top 3 in either race.
In May 2005, Redmond sued the racing authority and the Jockey Club after his request to name the horse for Hemings was denied. Redmond argued that the denial had deprived him of constitutional rights.
U.S. District Senior Judge Karl Forester had sided with the Jockey Club and the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority in dismissing the lawsuit.
Batchelder wrote that because the Jockey Club is a private organization with power delegated by the state, it may restrict free speech so long as it doesn't discriminate against a specific viewpoint.
She also quoted Shakespeare's "What's in a name?" and cited the band America in rejecting Redmond's appeal.
"In short, because he has spent three years insisting he has a constitutional right to name his horse 'Sally Hemings' and that no other name will do, Mr. Redmond now finds himself, like the songster of the 70s, having 'been through the desert on a horse with no name,"' Batchelder wrote.
"If he really wants to race or breed this horse in Kentucky, Mr. Redmond will have to come up with a name that complies with the Jockey Club's rules," Batchelder wrote. "A quick look at the Jockey Club's Registry confirms that 'Horse With No Name' is no longer available."
It is really extra-Contstitutional as to whether he wants to call his horse this or that. The Constitution is meant to put limits on government, not people........
As others have said, Redmond can call his horse anything he wants. But if he wants to race it at a public track, "names that may be offensive to religious, political or ethnic groups" won't be approved.
It's common sense, and common law under our 'fighting words' type codes.
Since you *can* obtain "special permission" to use names of famous or notorious people do you think if the owner was a black woman they'd not grant such permission?
Other blacks, or political supporters of Jefferson could [probably would] find the name offensive, as Sally is still a controversial political figure.
Remember, they're a literal gatekeeper for the state here and as such should not be allowed the broad rights afforded to truly private organizations.
Correct, the jockey club are gatekeepers for a public event. 'Fighting word' names for racehorses are not a wise mix with gambling/booze.
That is a good point.
One wonders why his reasons, if any, were not included in the article.
Seems a rather foolish waste of time and money to sue the Jockey Club over this.
I once had a pure bred dog, and officially registered him with the AKC name Ludwig Von Budweiser.His “real” name was Bud.
The AKC also reserved the right to deny owner submitted names for official registration, according to their guidelines.
Had they challenged the name, I can’t think of a single reason I would have sued over the situation.
Around that same time, there was a horse named "Shecky Greene", after the comedian of the same name. The owners, of course had his permission (the comedian's, not the horse's.)
So you agree he has a "blanket protection" for free speech in his private name for his horse?
It is really extra-Contstitutional as to whether he wants to call his horse this or that.
You just agreed that to race at a public track, the jockey club could [constitutionally speaking] limit what he 'calls' his horse. - You can't have it both ways.
The Constitution is meant to put limits on government, not people........
All people living in the USA are 'limited' by our supreme "Law of the Land".
As servicemen, we swore an oath to support & defend. ALL of us are so obligated, as per our oath of Citizenship. -- So -- We the People can't run about calling publicly raced horses by names that may be offensive to religious, political or ethnic groups. - Those are 'fighting words' under common law.
How about Camilla..it kind of fits.
Remember her? She used to be known as the next female Supreme Court justice.
How about “Intifada NYC”?
quick, get that horse a TShirt!
No, I didn’t know that.
Why would you want to do that to a horse?
So, the Judicial system is 'an ocean with its life underground and the perfect disguise above...'
Thought so, just checking.
“It feels good to be out of the rain”
Duh...
One can’t be both for and against established and legal traditions.
Pick a side.
One can’t be both for and against established and legal traditions. Pick a side.
While I do not have a horse in this race, so to speak, I can see some rules regarding naming horses.
For instance, in the heat of commentary, some horse names are going to be either humorously or offensively obscene, depending on the listener.
If an owner whose husband was known as 'Dick' wanted to name her horse 'Big Dick', and one imagines the commentary during the race, regardless of how well the horse runs...it becomes inherently obvious that some control may be needed if not self imposed by the owners... Ditto with names like "Mike Hunt".
Other names may be offensive for other reasons.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to anticipate who is going to be offended by what, sometimes, so the naming rules become an attempt to pre-empt the problem.
The jockey club is a private organization. The use of guidelines which protect the organization from presenting a deleterious or less than respectable image by the organization within its venues should be prefectly permissable.
Because you have a right to free speech, does not preclude private individuals or organiations from restricting that speech within their private venues.
You want to register your horse with them, you go by their guidelines. If you don't like the established guidelines start your own club and write your own, or work within the club to change theirs.
There are reasons that many established traditions have withstood the test of time, and they should never be lightly be tampered with.
It's a private track, open to the public. There's a difference. Here's a personal example: I work for a private company (no publicly traded stock). For a few years after 9/11 I had a sign, that I made myself, on my work bench that said "I SLAM ISLAM". Like I said, it had been here for at least 3 years. One day the boss/owner of the company asked me to take it down. I did, without protest. His reason was that he was afraid someone might see it and be offended. This is a small company, 15 employees and most of them are related to the family that owns this company. We are all Protestant and Catholic. We get few visitors as we are a small business electronics company that builds primarily stuff under government contracts, US and foreign. We hardly ever even see a "customer". Just build, test, ship the product and get the check. Now I could have gone on about my "free speech rights" etc, but this is not my company, and he has every right to tell me to take down my "political sign", because it's HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY, even though he agreed with my message!
All people living in the USA are 'limited' by our supreme "Law of the Land".
You just agreed that to race at a public track, the jockey club could [constitutionally speaking] limit what he 'calls' his horse. - You can't have it both ways.
It's a private track, open to the public. There's a difference.
Fine. - We agree then, that [constitutionally speaking] at a private track, open to the public, racehorses names can be limited.
Thus, - the Constitution puts limits on people, as well as on governments.
It really has nothing to do with the Constitution. Government is not involved, only the private sector and how they chose to allow or disallow whatever. The primary underlying reason is money. They don’t want to “offend” any current or potential “customers” by having a horse named something that would be considered “offensive” or disrespectful. The “market place” puts its own restrictions on things outside of the purview of any government constitution.
Now if the government (of the city, county, state, or federal) had made a law, ordinance etc. that prevented you from exercising that “freedom” to name your horse, cat, dog or car, something (they, government bureaucrats, etc.) deemed “offensive” THEN I would have a “figantice, hugh and series” problem with it!
All people living in the USA are 'limited' by our supreme "Law of the Land".
- We agree then, that [constitutionally speaking] at a private track, open to the public, racehorses names can be limited.
Thus, - the Constitution puts limits on people, as well as on governments.
It really has nothing to do with the Constitution. Government is not involved, only the private sector and how they chose to allow or disallow whatever.
You really think that "the private sector" can ignore our Constitutional freedoms, our Law of the Land?
The primary underlying reason is money. They don't want to 'offend' any current or potential 'customers' by having a horse named something that would be considered 'offensive' or disrespectful. The 'market place' puts its own restrictions on things outside of the purview of any government constitution.
Sure it does. But the marketplace itself is restricted by our Law of the Land, by our freedoms as per the Bill of Rights.
Now if the government (of the city, county, state, or federal) had made a law, ordinance etc. that prevented you from exercising that 'freedom' to name your horse, cat, dog or car, something (they, government bureaucrats, etc.) deemed 'offensive' THEN I would have a 'figantice, hugh and series' problem with it!
The jockey club [constitutionally speaking] can prevent you from racing a horse with an offensive name at a private track, open to the public.
--- Learn to live with that fact.
I have absolutely NO problem with it. It's a private organization and has its own rules. Any member is free to leave if they do not agree with those rules and start their own jockey club where you can name horses Mohammed, Roosevelt or whatever suits your fancy. If the public (ie, marketplace) is in agreement with you and you practices, you will make money, the primary goal..........
All people living in the USA are 'limited' by our supreme "Law of the Land".
Thus, - the Constitution puts limits on people, as well as on governments.
You really think that "the private sector" can ignore our Constitutional freedoms, our Law of the Land?
The marketplace itself is restricted by our Law of the Land, by our freedoms as per the Bill of Rights.
Any member is free --- to start their own jockey club where you can name horses Mohammed, Roosevelt or whatever suits your fancy.
Do you really think a State or local government could or would [constitutionally speaking] license a racetrack that allowed gambling on horses named Mohammed, Roosevelt or whatever offensive name suits your fancy?
Dream on.
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.