• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

Which they didn't say that they couldn't use the name. Just that they lost some patent protection.

The Skins could even still win a civil suit, it only means that a patent infringement couldn't be brought in criminal court.

They dropped the trademark to pressure them into changing the name by harming their profit margin. So yes, the patent office is regulating free speech. A power they DO NOT have.
 
That doesn't answer my questions. PS I don't use either of those terms.

Do you think the Redskins were attempting to marginalize Native Americans, and since we both agree that the LGBT community has been denied equal rights, specifically what equal rights do you think Native Americans were being denied?

I am not talking about equal rights. I am talking about the general attitudes of the majority towards the minority and how they are marginalized sociologically. I brought up the polling on SSM just to show how attitudes have changed.

The Redskins may not have been trying to marginalize Native Americans when they named the team. As time goes on, language evolves. The term "redskin" may have been acceptable when they named the team. The n-word was acceptable for the majority to use at that time too. The times have changed. Language has evolved. This issue isn't going away. Referring to people by their skin color is culturally insensitive when used in the context of a franchise mascot.
 
I think it's bad to take a race of human beings as a mascot like we do lions and tigers and bears.

Well, if they can sell it then they certainly have the right to do so.

BTW, is that considered porn?
 
What's interesting too is the dissenting opinion on the matter from 1 of the 3 judges tasked with making this (ridiculous) decision. I forget his name but his dissent was online yesterday, and he said the petitioners (the 5 Native Americans) failed to prove that the term "Redskins" was disparaging at the time the trademarks were registered.

That has been my understanding as well. This is what should be so disturbing about the removal of the trademark protection. This is government by whim.

Why that is not seen as an expansion of the very dangerous waters the country is being forced to wade in by the leadership in the White House and elsewhere, is alarming.
 
The Redskins may not have been trying to marginalize Native Americans when they named the team. As time goes on, language evolves. The term "redskin" may have been acceptable when they named the team. The n-word was acceptable for the majority to use at that time too. The times have changed. Language has evolved. This issue isn't going away. Referring to people by their skin color is culturally insensitive when used in the context of a franchise mascot.

We wouldn't want to be insensitive. God, if that was against the law I would be in jail for life. :D
 
I am not talking about equal rights. I am talking about the general attitudes of the majority towards the minority and how they are marginalized sociologically. I brought up the polling on SSM just to show how attitudes have changed.

The Redskins may not have been trying to marginalize Native Americans when they named the team. As time goes on, language evolves. The term "redskin" may have been acceptable when they named the team. The n-word was acceptable for the majority to use at that time too. The times have changed. Language has evolved. This issue isn't going away. Referring to people by their skin color is culturally insensitive when used in the context of a franchise mascot.

So nobody was being oppressed by the name, nobody was losing any rights because of the name, this was all just....emotion.

Do you have a poll that shows the majority of Native Americans are offended by the name?
 
Offensive, or not, the patent office doesn't have the authority to regulate free speech.

They don't? Why not?
 
I am not talking about equal rights. I am talking about the general attitudes of the majority towards the minority and how they are marginalized sociologically. I brought up the polling on SSM just to show how attitudes have changed.

The Redskins may not have been trying to marginalize Native Americans when they named the team. As time goes on, language evolves. The term "redskin" may have been acceptable when they named the team. The n-word was acceptable for the majority to use at that time too. The times have changed. Language has evolved. This issue isn't going away. Referring to people by their skin color is culturally insensitive when used in the context of a franchise mascot.

But, that pesky ol' 1st Amendment is still there!
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063421163 said:
Speaking of wet and wild, is that a pearl necklace you're wearing? :3oops:

Hmmm... go redskins!

Yes - oh my gosh. Finally someone gets the joke! So maybe a few people got it and just didn't say anything - but dayum! Thanks - faith in humanity restored. People still get subtle dirty jokes.
 
They don't? Why not?

Oh, I dunno. Might be that thing we have called, "The Constitution"? It's been around since before you were born. Perhaps you've heard of it?
 
That's not the same as turning them into a cartoon while calling them redskins.

So the name isn't offensive, just the picture of the Indian with the feather and white paint?

Does this mean we will never see this image used again, or anything even remotely similar? I'm sure the Patent Office and every branch of the US government are going to prohibit the image of a man, obviously a Native American, with a feather on his head and white war paint. Is that right?

Those images will be striken from all school books (they're in there now by the way, I have 3 kids and know this)?
No manufacturer of Thanksgiving decorations will be allowed to use that kind of rendering?
No more Halloween costumes that even slightly resemble that?

Is that what we can expect from the government?
 
They dropped the trademark to pressure them into changing the name by harming their profit margin. So yes, the patent office is regulating free speech. A power they DO NOT have.

Trademark registry deals with words...of course they are empowered to make decisions on speech. Besides, they did not say Snyder can't us the word. They said he can no longer register it. You really need to study up on the actual meaning of "free speech."

BTW, trademark registration has a long list of rules for which words can and cannot be registered.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/840z57sGCyU/0.jpg
 
Trademark registry deals with words...of course they are empowered to make decisions on speech. Besides, they did not say Snyder can't us the word. They said he can no longer register it. You really need to study up on the actual meaning of "free speech."

BTW, trademark registration has a long list of rules for which words can and cannot be registered.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/840z57sGCyU/0.jpg

The trademark was already registered.
 
So your saying "I've got Native ancestry and I'm not offended" overrides their "I've got Native ancestry and I am offended?"

Yep. Pretty much. When some small butt-hurt group of attention-whores want to take something that was absolutely not intended to be offensive (and had approval of Native Americans) and then insist that things have changed and now you are all pouty because you don't care what was intended, you have chosen to be offended no matter what....

Well, you sorta lose my sympathy for your manufactured outrage, knowhatimeanvern?

Of course, you are entitled to disagree or even weep, wail and gnash your teeth if you wish, but that's my opinion.
 
That has been my understanding as well. This is what should be so disturbing about the removal of the trademark protection. This is government by whim.

Why that is not seen as an expansion of the very dangerous waters the country is being forced to wade in by the leadership in the White House and elsewhere, is alarming.

I personally don't care if the Redskins are called the Redskins or the Hounds or the Dickheads. As a Giants fan, I will hate them no matter what.;)

What I detest in this story is exactly what you said here (bolded part). I'm amazed that not everyone shares our concern.
 
So nobody was being oppressed by the name, nobody was losing any rights because of the name, this was all just....emotion.

Do you have a poll that shows the majority of Native Americans are offended by the name?

You've obviously never been marginalized and alienated.

9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape. Do you have a poll that says otherwise?
 
Trademark registry deals with words...of course they are empowered to make decisions on speech. Besides, they did not say Snyder can't us the word. They said he can no longer register it. You really need to study up on the actual meaning of "free speech."

BTW, trademark registration has a long list of rules for which words can and cannot be registered.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/840z57sGCyU/0.jpg

So they have a rule that reads: "Whenever we feel like it"?
 
So the name isn't offensive, just the picture of the Indian with the feather and white paint?
No. Braves, Indians, Seminoles, Hawks...are all OK sans the offensive caricatures, but Redskins is a racial slur.

Does this mean we will never see this image used again, or anything even remotely similar? I'm sure the Patent Office and every branch of the US government are going to prohibit the image of a man, obviously a Native American, with a feather on his head and white war paint. Is that right?
Anyone can use it. It can't be registered. Big difference.

Those images will be striken from all school books (they're in there now by the way, I have 3 kids and know this)?
No manufacturer of Thanksgiving decorations will be allowed to use that kind of rendering?
No more Halloween costumes that even slightly resemble that?

Is that what we can expect from the government?
Again. Anyone can use any image they want. However, trademarking it, legally registering it, is no longer being allowed.
 
Back
Top Bottom