A Favorable First Amendment Slant Should Save the Redskin's Trademark

For several years, there has been a politically correct effort to force the Washington Redskins to change their name.  In fact, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was convinced with withdraw the NFL franchise's trademark protection in 1999 and 2014, citing that "the term redskin" as derogatory and offensive even though the USPTO had approved the mark over 80 years before. Washington Redskin's owner Daniel Synder appealed claiming that case law and the weight of the evidence had been ignored.  A federal district court agreed with the Patent Office's withdrawal of the trademark in July 2015. 

However, a Federal Appeals court handed down a ruling which may well be a game changer.  The Portland Oregon dance rock band "The Slants" won a Federal Appeals Court case which began in 2011 over their provocative moniker.  The Slants are composed of Asian Pacific Island band members and pride themselves as taking on racism presumably by embracing a name which many consider to be ethnic slander. 

The Slants

In a December 22, 2015 decision, the Federal Appeals Court ruled:

“Many of the marks rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities. But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech...

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks."

That ruling ended The Slant's legal Misery, but also serves as a strong indication that the Redskin's ruling will not stand. The Redskins were stripped of trademark protection because of "hurtful speech".  In addition, the Redskin's case is even stronger as the USPTO had already approved the trademark years before and then sought to yank it away.  However, because the Redskin's appeal is in another circuit, the Slant's ruling is not automatically set a precedent.  And the US Supreme Court could also overturn the Slant's First Amendment trademark protection.

But until then..

UPDATE: 01/18/2017:  The Slants get their day at the highest court in the land as Lee v. Tam reaches the Supreme Court. The justices will decide whether the government can penalize free speech which it finds offensive or if the government granting a trademark protection allows it to disassociate from ideas which the public might find offensive 

Obamacare for the Internet?

President Barack Obama strongly weighed in on the net neutrality issue, petitioning the F.C.C. to consider the internet like a public utility for Americans.




While net neutrality is understood as internet companies adjusting internet speeds for certain users.  Mr. Obama's statement declares:

"I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online."

However, the ramifications of the Obama Administration's modest proposal goes beyond "internet fast lanes".  By applying the net neutrality to cellular companies, who offered tiers of service based on payments and who will govern a small number of bandwidth hogs.  Enforcing net neutrality could either raise rates for everyone or cause congestion reducing access for many mobile data users.

Of course, treating the internet like a public utility means lots of government bureaucrats and functionaries to apply and monitor these rules.  The problem is that instead of applying the principle of subsidiarity, where governing happens on a local or state level, inevitably this would be centralized in the District of Calamity (sic).

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered some quick and incisive reaction on Twitter to Mr. Obama's play on net neutrality.

Do we really want to cede control of the internet to the government, which spent $2 Billion on Healthcare.gov  and could not build an efficient and secure webpage?

Mr. Obama rightly notes that the F.C.C. is an independent agency so which unelected bureaucrats will govern us with little chance of redress?

Let us not forget about mission creep.  Currently, the F.C.C. is taking comments on the alleged offensiveness of the term "Redskins" to force owner Dan Snyder to change the name of the sports franchise from "The Washington Redskins".  This is being pursued by trying to pull the licenses of a couple of Red Zebra am sports radio stations that the Redskins owner controls.  This would set a precedent of government censoring content based on shifting political correctness, not well established community standards like George Carlin's "The Seven Words" that you can't say when broadcasting.

Furthermore, how much will the government stifle innovation on the internet as government bureaucrats figure things out and assess what is fair and neutral.

There has been wrangling for years over net neutrality. But it would be prudent to give a death panel to the notion of making the Internet into Obamacare via public utility regulation by the federal government.

Harry Reid on the Redskins

In the wake of NBA Commissioner Adam Silver's swift and severe punishment of L.A. Clippers' owner Donald Sterling's racist rant made in private, politicians rushed to jump in on the Politically Correct civic circus. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) used some of his floor time on the US Senate to rail against Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder's intransigence about changing the team name.  

When Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson (D-Sacramento) crowed about "what sports can do", he gloated that President Obama and Vice President Biden expressed support for doing something to rectify the situation.

What form of polity is a government which nudges businesses to order society to their desired goals?  With the myriad of problems which face the Federal government and the Senate's inability to act, the Majority Leader ought to concentrate on legislating rather than dictating sports team nicknames. 

RGIII Is Not PC in DC

Since the City Council in the District of Calamity has nothing better to do, Councilman David Grosso (I-At Large DC) has proposed a non-binding resolution to prompt the Washington NFL franchise to change its name from the “Redskins” because Grosso finds it racist and offensive.  The councilman claims that a majority of DC City Council  will support the resolution.

The politically correct clamor from the DC City Council is meant to bolster efforts by aboriginal American groups who are suing to deny the football franchise from keeping trademark protection for their famous Redskins moniker.  







Grosso proffered his solution to change the name of the team to the Redtails.   Grosso observes that : “You can still sing the song and everything...you can still keep the feather.”  How generous! This solicitous solution sounds as weak as changing the Washington Bullets to the Wizards.  


While the Clash sang about Washington Bullets referring to weapons, the Washington Bullets name derived from a shoe manufacturer.  The American Basketball League Baltimore Bullets were named after Bata Bullets athletic shoes named near Baltimore.  Washington kept the name Bullets of the NBA franchise from 1973 when the team moved to DC until 1995 when owner Abe Pollin wanted to change the name after the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzah Rabin.  While there was a contest to narrow the name list and the Wizards moniker was chosen.   But that was the free market working by a capitalist choosing to rebrand to suit himself.

Now it seems that politically correct politicians and attention seeking pressure groups want to dictate how private companies can market themselves.  No wonder why DC can be considered the District of Calamity (sic). 

What is remarkable about this politically correct pogrom is that a prominent community leader took a stand against social tyranny.  Robert Griffin, Jr (a.k.a. RGIII), the first year Washington starting quarterback who lead his team from the wilderness into the NFL playoffs dared to speak his mind and buck the PC powers that be.  RGIII tweeted “In the land of political freedom, we are held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness.”  

It did not take long for RGIII’s Twitter statement of independence to draw fire from those who would otherwise champion diversity (as long it conforms to their mores).

It seems that the ‘Skin’s star quarterback is not only agile and inspirational but also courageous.  But now the ire of liberal sports writers will be waiting to heckle him.  RGIII may be treated slightly better than dog killer Michael Vick before he was convicted.  However, if RGIII stumbles in his comeback from season ending knee surgery, he might be considered like a PC sports pariah ala Tim Tebow.   


h/t: The Blaze
      WAMU .