RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Should the Redskins change their name?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4304



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/19/14 2:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If the Redskins were to change their name (Braves, Warriors, etc.) to some other Indian related name and drop the logo, would that satisfy people, or would the bitching just start all over again?

Because there does seem to be two sets of opponents to the name. The ones that oppose Redskins and then the one that opposes any Indian related name at all.
rykhala



Joined: 15 Oct 2009
Posts: 261
Location: Saint Louis, MO


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/26/14 6:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well, they are not Indian names at all. They are no different than any of the hundreds of racial slurs. I am sure that we can all agree that it would be awful to have teams called the Spics, Wetbacks, Degos, Kikes, Tar Babies, Lesbos, Chinks, Gooks, Coons, or Spooks. Why is it so hard to understand how inflammatory Redskins team name is?


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 11:23 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

"I'll Fucking Cut You" a behind the scenes account if the Daily Show's Washington Redskins segment.

Great article, and really puts things into perspective.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 12:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
p_d_swanson



Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 9714



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 12:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

South Park: Go Fund Yourself


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 9678
Location: In a world where a dbag like Trump isn't potus. If u were in my safe space, you'd have to be f'd up


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 1:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Man, reading some of the comments below the article....sheesh.

I would like to know what REALLY bothers opponents of the name change.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 1:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 2:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.

That's for its "indecency" standards. This would qualify under the FCC's restrictions on "profane" language. According to the FCC something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Because of the first amendment, profane speech cannot be banned outright, but they are allowed to restrict the times when it can occur. Right now that is between 6am and 10pm. Since the NFL is played during these time slots, it would apply and would not be considered unconstitutional.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 3:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.

That's for its "indecency" standards. This would qualify under the FCC's restrictions on "profane" language. According to the FCC something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Because of the first amendment, profane speech cannot be banned outright, but they are allowed to restrict the times when it can occur. Right now that is between 6am and 10pm. Since the NFL is played during these time slots, it would apply and would not be considered unconstitutional.


I've got to disagree.

First, there is no normal definition of "profane" that includes racial slurs, so that FCC would have to change its definition.

Second, this is not the FCC deciding to do something; it's a petition that a well-known gadfly filed, partly for publicity, so there's no particular reason to think the FCC will do anything.

Third, while the article says the FCC is "considering" the petition, that's pretty much what it has to say until it acts on it (which I expect to happen roughly never).

Fourth, the FCC has had trouble enforcing even the indecency rule, so the likelihood it would stretch this far is pretty low. (Remember the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident? The Supreme Court decided that the FCC couldn't enforce the indecency rule to fine CBS for it.) The FCC is not likely to stretch in a way that could lead the Supreme Court to decide that the whole rule is unconstitutional.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 4:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.

That's for its "indecency" standards. This would qualify under the FCC's restrictions on "profane" language. According to the FCC something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Because of the first amendment, profane speech cannot be banned outright, but they are allowed to restrict the times when it can occur. Right now that is between 6am and 10pm. Since the NFL is played during these time slots, it would apply and would not be considered unconstitutional.


I've got to disagree.

First, there is no normal definition of "profane" that includes racial slurs, so that FCC would have to change its definition.

Second, this is not the FCC deciding to do something; it's a petition that a well-known gadfly filed, partly for publicity, so there's no particular reason to think the FCC will do anything.

Third, while the article says the FCC is "considering" the petition, that's pretty much what it has to say until it acts on it (which I expect to happen roughly never).

Fourth, the FCC has had trouble enforcing even the indecency rule, so the likelihood it would stretch this far is pretty low. (Remember the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident? The Supreme Court decided that the FCC couldn't enforce the indecency rule to fine CBS for it.) The FCC is not likely to stretch in a way that could lead the Supreme Court to decide that the whole rule is unconstitutional.

I am not saying the FCC will actually do something, but that they could. What I quoted above is the definition for profane that they use.

According to the FCC's definition, something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

It is why you can't drop racial slurs, as the community would find them offensive. If they were to determine that "Redskins" was, in fact, a racial slur, it would be consistent with their handling of other matters.

And unless the Supreme Court chose to overturn precedent, it would not fail a first amendment challenge. SCOTUS has held that it is perfectly acceptable to limit when speech may be used, if there is another reasonable goal. In this case, the idea is that there is content that is unacceptable for children to hear/see (profanity and indecent content) and that by banning these things during those time-slots they are able to accomplish that goal while not banning them outright.

The Janet Jackson case was declined to be heard by the Supreme Court, which left a lower court's decision in place. The lower court overturned the fine because it was not consistent with how the FCC had adjudicated these sorts of offenses before. The FCC typically turned a blind eye towards fleeting indecency that just had not been caught by the network censors. However, Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement saying that the statements of the FCC in this case would serve as a forewarning to the networks should it happen again (thus suggesting that the same defense of inconsistency and lack of awareness could not be used again). He said that it provided fair warning that "the brevity of an indecent broadcast -- be it word or image -- cannot immunize it from FCC censure."

Current FCC chair Tom Wheeler has called the name "offensive and derogatory" earlier this month, and former chair Reed Hundt has noted that he thinks the name could violate the FCC's decency standards.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 7:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.

That's for its "indecency" standards. This would qualify under the FCC's restrictions on "profane" language. According to the FCC something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Because of the first amendment, profane speech cannot be banned outright, but they are allowed to restrict the times when it can occur. Right now that is between 6am and 10pm. Since the NFL is played during these time slots, it would apply and would not be considered unconstitutional.


I've got to disagree.

First, there is no normal definition of "profane" that includes racial slurs, so that FCC would have to change its definition.

Second, this is not the FCC deciding to do something; it's a petition that a well-known gadfly filed, partly for publicity, so there's no particular reason to think the FCC will do anything.

Third, while the article says the FCC is "considering" the petition, that's pretty much what it has to say until it acts on it (which I expect to happen roughly never).

Fourth, the FCC has had trouble enforcing even the indecency rule, so the likelihood it would stretch this far is pretty low. (Remember the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident? The Supreme Court decided that the FCC couldn't enforce the indecency rule to fine CBS for it.) The FCC is not likely to stretch in a way that could lead the Supreme Court to decide that the whole rule is unconstitutional.

I am not saying the FCC will actually do something, but that they could. What I quoted above is the definition for profane that they use.

According to the FCC's definition, something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

It is why you can't drop racial slurs, as the community would find them offensive. If they were to determine that "Redskins" was, in fact, a racial slur, it would be consistent with their handling of other matters.

And unless the Supreme Court chose to overturn precedent, it would not fail a first amendment challenge. SCOTUS has held that it is perfectly acceptable to limit when speech may be used, if there is another reasonable goal. In this case, the idea is that there is content that is unacceptable for children to hear/see (profanity and indecent content) and that by banning these things during those time-slots they are able to accomplish that goal while not banning them outright.

The Janet Jackson case was declined to be heard by the Supreme Court, which left a lower court's decision in place. The lower court overturned the fine because it was not consistent with how the FCC had adjudicated these sorts of offenses before. The FCC typically turned a blind eye towards fleeting indecency that just had not been caught by the network censors. However, Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement saying that the statements of the FCC in this case would serve as a forewarning to the networks should it happen again (thus suggesting that the same defense of inconsistency and lack of awareness could not be used again). He said that it provided fair warning that "the brevity of an indecent broadcast -- be it word or image -- cannot immunize it from FCC censure."

Current FCC chair Tom Wheeler has called the name "offensive and derogatory" earlier this month, and former chair Reed Hundt has noted that he thinks the name could violate the FCC's decency standards.


The views of the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, on these kinds of First Amendment issues have changed significantly since the original Pacifica decision. The likelihood that the Supreme Court would accept an extension of the already-shaky rules governing indecency and profanity to cover the name of a professional football team is essentially zero, and it's hard to imagine that the FCC would be so crazy as pick that fight. (The Supreme Court certainly did hear the Janet Jackson case, by the way - it issued a decision on June 21, 2012. Justice Roberts did not write any opinion in that case - it was by Justice Kennedy.)

Also, I'm pretty sure there are exactly zero cases in at least the last 25 years where the FCC has fined - or even admonished - a station for broadcasting any non-sexual, non-excretory offensive term, either as an isolated utterance or repeatedly. Go back even further, to the 1970s, and the FCC never once cited "All in the Family," which was filled with ethnic slurs and hateful language. (Really, you couldn't put it on the air today - there are a few examples here, but there were hundreds more.) I'm also confident there are no Supreme Court cases on the FCC's ability to adopt rules on non-sexual, non-excretory terms, so there's no precedent to overturn.

(And I'm not pulling this out of thin air - a big chunk of what I do involves the FCC.)


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 9:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
pilight wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/fcc-redskins-nickname_n_5909796.html

Quote:
The FCC could formally deem use of the team name to be indecent, and thus impose a de facto ban on it on over-the-air television and radio.


That's not going to happen. Indecency under the FCC's policies is pretty clearly limited to sexual and excretory language, and even that has some significant First Amendment issues. The FCC would lose the appeal (as should be the case), and probably very, very quickly.

That's for its "indecency" standards. This would qualify under the FCC's restrictions on "profane" language. According to the FCC something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.

Because of the first amendment, profane speech cannot be banned outright, but they are allowed to restrict the times when it can occur. Right now that is between 6am and 10pm. Since the NFL is played during these time slots, it would apply and would not be considered unconstitutional.


I've got to disagree.

First, there is no normal definition of "profane" that includes racial slurs, so that FCC would have to change its definition.

Second, this is not the FCC deciding to do something; it's a petition that a well-known gadfly filed, partly for publicity, so there's no particular reason to think the FCC will do anything.

Third, while the article says the FCC is "considering" the petition, that's pretty much what it has to say until it acts on it (which I expect to happen roughly never).

Fourth, the FCC has had trouble enforcing even the indecency rule, so the likelihood it would stretch this far is pretty low. (Remember the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident? The Supreme Court decided that the FCC couldn't enforce the indecency rule to fine CBS for it.) The FCC is not likely to stretch in a way that could lead the Supreme Court to decide that the whole rule is unconstitutional.

I am not saying the FCC will actually do something, but that they could. What I quoted above is the definition for profane that they use.

According to the FCC's definition, something is profane if it "includ[es] language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

It is why you can't drop racial slurs, as the community would find them offensive. If they were to determine that "Redskins" was, in fact, a racial slur, it would be consistent with their handling of other matters.

And unless the Supreme Court chose to overturn precedent, it would not fail a first amendment challenge. SCOTUS has held that it is perfectly acceptable to limit when speech may be used, if there is another reasonable goal. In this case, the idea is that there is content that is unacceptable for children to hear/see (profanity and indecent content) and that by banning these things during those time-slots they are able to accomplish that goal while not banning them outright.

The Janet Jackson case was declined to be heard by the Supreme Court, which left a lower court's decision in place. The lower court overturned the fine because it was not consistent with how the FCC had adjudicated these sorts of offenses before. The FCC typically turned a blind eye towards fleeting indecency that just had not been caught by the network censors. However, Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement saying that the statements of the FCC in this case would serve as a forewarning to the networks should it happen again (thus suggesting that the same defense of inconsistency and lack of awareness could not be used again). He said that it provided fair warning that "the brevity of an indecent broadcast -- be it word or image -- cannot immunize it from FCC censure."

Current FCC chair Tom Wheeler has called the name "offensive and derogatory" earlier this month, and former chair Reed Hundt has noted that he thinks the name could violate the FCC's decency standards.


The views of the federal courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, on these kinds of First Amendment issues have changed significantly since the original Pacifica decision. The likelihood that the Supreme Court would accept an extension of the already-shaky rules governing indecency and profanity to cover the name of a professional football team is essentially zero, and it's hard to imagine that the FCC would be so crazy as pick that fight. (The Supreme Court certainly did hear the Janet Jackson case, by the way - it issued a decision on June 21, 2012. Justice Roberts did not write any opinion in that case - it was by Justice Kennedy.)

Also, I'm pretty sure there are exactly zero cases in at least the last 25 years where the FCC has fined - or even admonished - a station for broadcasting any non-sexual, non-excretory offensive term, either as an isolated utterance or repeatedly. Go back even further, to the 1970s, and the FCC never once cited "All in the Family," which was filled with ethnic slurs and hateful language. (Really, you couldn't put it on the air today - there are a few examples here, but there were hundreds more.) I'm also confident there are no Supreme Court cases on the FCC's ability to adopt rules on non-sexual, non-excretory terms, so there's no precedent to overturn.

(And I'm not pulling this out of thin air - a big chunk of what I do involves the FCC.)

As the FCC stated on their site, context matters. In the case of All in the Family the language was designed to highlight a point, as is the case with most ethnic slurs when used in the mainstream. That is very different from using an ethnic slur in the horrible way that Washington's football team does. There is no context, it's just a throwaway.

It would be like just dropping the N-word on television without any deeper meaning. Using it just to use it. And I'd be willing to bet if a network did that, a fine would be incoming. There might not be case history, but that is because no network is that stupid.

The precedent we are talking about here is FCC v. Pacifica. It has long been the position of the court that speech can be limited as long as it passes scrutiny, and Pacifica applied that scrutiny to things that were "indecent but not obscene". The court found the government has a compelling interest in both shielding children from potentially offensive material, and ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home.

Pacifica is why the FCC can even function at all. The outcome of the ruling was that the FCC could ban outright anything considered "obscene" (as obscenity has no first amendment protection) while anything that was determined to be "indecent" or "profane" could be limited between 6am and 10pm. It also gave the FCC very broad leeway in determining what was indecent. Now, whether that would continue to be upheld should it be challenged is definitely debatable, but that is where the current rulings have it placed.

As for the Janet Jackson case, here is the article:

Quote:
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to consider an appeal by the Federal Communications Commission of an appeals court ruling that overturned the agencys fine against CBS for its broadcasting a fleeting image of Janet Jacksons breast during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. warned that because of changes in the agencys rules since then, any similar offense could be punished.

It is now clear that the brevity of an indecent broadcast be it word or image cannot immunize it from F.C.C. censure, he wrote in a two-page opinion that put to rest the CBS case, clearing the network of a $550,000 fine.

Recalling the performance by Ms. Jackson and Justin Timberlake, he noted, The performers subsequently strained the credulity of the public by terming the episode a wardrobe malfunction.


There was another case, not involving Jackson, that was decided upon in an 8-0 decision in which Kennedy wrote the opinion. This was FCC vs. Fox Television Stations. But all the court determined was that Fox shouldn't have to pay a fine for "fleeting" expletives because the FCC was too vague in where they drew the line at for "decency" (thus violated due process clause). However, that case also reaffirmed the earlier Pacifica decision. This is why Roberts noted that CBS (and all networks) were officially on notice about what the FCC considered indecent, and that if it happened again, they would not have a due process claim to stand on.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 9:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure there are exactly zero cases in at least the last 25 years where the FCC has fined - or even admonished - a station for broadcasting any non-sexual, non-excretory offensive term, either as an isolated utterance or repeatedly. Go back even further, to the 1970s, and the FCC never once cited "All in the Family," which was filled with ethnic slurs and hateful language. (Really, you couldn't put it on the air today - there are a few examples here, but there were hundreds more.) I'm also confident there are no Supreme Court cases on the FCC's ability to adopt rules on non-sexual, non-excretory terms, so there's no precedent to overturn.

(And I'm not pulling this out of thin air - a big chunk of what I do involves the FCC.)

As the FCC stated on their site, context matters. In the case of All in the Family the language was designed to highlight a point, as is the case with most ethnic slurs when used in the mainstream. That is very different from using an ethnic slur in the horrible way that Washington's football team does. There is no context, it's just a throwaway.

It would be like just dropping the N-word on television without any deeper meaning. Using it just to use it. And I'd be willing to bet if a network did that, a fine would be incoming. There might not be case history, but that is because no network is that stupid.

The precedent we are talking about here is FCC v. Pacifica. It has long been the position of the court that speech can be limited as long as it passes scrutiny, and Pacifica applied that scrutiny to things that were "indecent but not obscene". The court found the government has a compelling interest in both shielding children from potentially offensive material, and ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home.

Pacifica is why the FCC can even function at all. The outcome of the ruling was that the FCC could ban outright anything considered "obscene" (as obscenity has no first amendment protection) while anything that was determined to be "indecent" or "profane" could be limited between 6am and 10pm. It also gave the FCC very broad leeway in determining what was indecent. Now, whether that would continue to be upheld should it be challenged is definitely debatable, but that is where the current rulings have it placed.

* * *


I repeat: There is not one case in which the FCC has ever fined anyone for using an ethnic slur. They've been used in all sorts of programming, in all sorts of contexts, but no fines, ever. (Howard Stern, for instance, never was cited when he was on broadcast radio for the times the n-word was used on his broadcasts, although he was a target for indecency on multiple occasions.) It also would be an incredible deviation from FCC policy to single out one word from all the others.

In this particular case, context pretty obviously would work against a claimed violation, too - the team name wouldn't be used as a slur, but as the name.

Now, sure, the FCC could give it a try, but there's no evidence that it ever would and certainly no reason to believe that the courts would let it stand.

I'm no fan of the name, to be clear - I think it should be changed, and should have been changed a while back. And, personally, I thought the trademark challenge was very clever and appropriate. There's a big, big difference, though, between denying trademark protection and telling broadcasters that they can't use the name of an NFL team on the air.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 10:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
justintyme wrote:
beknighted wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure there are exactly zero cases in at least the last 25 years where the FCC has fined - or even admonished - a station for broadcasting any non-sexual, non-excretory offensive term, either as an isolated utterance or repeatedly. Go back even further, to the 1970s, and the FCC never once cited "All in the Family," which was filled with ethnic slurs and hateful language. (Really, you couldn't put it on the air today - there are a few examples here, but there were hundreds more.) I'm also confident there are no Supreme Court cases on the FCC's ability to adopt rules on non-sexual, non-excretory terms, so there's no precedent to overturn.

(And I'm not pulling this out of thin air - a big chunk of what I do involves the FCC.)

As the FCC stated on their site, context matters. In the case of All in the Family the language was designed to highlight a point, as is the case with most ethnic slurs when used in the mainstream. That is very different from using an ethnic slur in the horrible way that Washington's football team does. There is no context, it's just a throwaway.

It would be like just dropping the N-word on television without any deeper meaning. Using it just to use it. And I'd be willing to bet if a network did that, a fine would be incoming. There might not be case history, but that is because no network is that stupid.

The precedent we are talking about here is FCC v. Pacifica. It has long been the position of the court that speech can be limited as long as it passes scrutiny, and Pacifica applied that scrutiny to things that were "indecent but not obscene". The court found the government has a compelling interest in both shielding children from potentially offensive material, and ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home.

Pacifica is why the FCC can even function at all. The outcome of the ruling was that the FCC could ban outright anything considered "obscene" (as obscenity has no first amendment protection) while anything that was determined to be "indecent" or "profane" could be limited between 6am and 10pm. It also gave the FCC very broad leeway in determining what was indecent. Now, whether that would continue to be upheld should it be challenged is definitely debatable, but that is where the current rulings have it placed.

* * *


I repeat: There is not one case in which the FCC has ever fined anyone for using an ethnic slur. They've been used in all sorts of programming, in all sorts of contexts, but no fines, ever. (Howard Stern, for instance, never was cited when he was on broadcast radio for the times the n-word was used on his broadcasts, although he was a target for indecency on multiple occasions.) It also would be an incredible deviation from FCC policy to single out one word from all the others.

In this particular case, context pretty obviously would work against a claimed violation, too - the team name wouldn't be used as a slur, but as the name.

Now, sure, the FCC could give it a try, but there's no evidence that it ever would and certainly no reason to believe that the courts would let it stand.

I'm no fan of the name, to be clear - I think it should be changed, and should have been changed a while back. And, personally, I thought the trademark challenge was very clever and appropriate. There's a big, big difference, though, between denying trademark protection and telling broadcasters that they can't use the name of an NFL team on the air.

I agree that this would be a bit of a departure for the FCC to do this. And I agree with you in that I think it is a long shot. My only position here was that they could under the current laws/SC decisions. All they need do, according to the SC and their 2012 decision is make sure the networks are clear that they consider the word indecent.

Is it the correct choice? I don't think so. I am actually for less regulation from the FCC. But it seems well within their current authority to do so if they chose. And I am not convinced that SCOTUS would find it unconstitutional since thy had the ability to limit or overturn Pacifica as recently as 2012, and they chose not to.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/01/14 10:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
[
I agree that this would be a bit of a departure for the FCC to do this. And I agree with you in that I think it is a long shot. My only position here was that they could under the current laws/SC decisions. All they need do, according to the SC and their 2012 decision is make sure the networks are clear that they consider the word indecent.

Is it the correct choice? I don't think so. I am actually for less regulation from the FCC. But it seems well within their current authority to do so if they chose. And I am not convinced that SCOTUS would find it unconstitutional since thy had the ability to limit or overturn Pacifica as recently as 2012, and they chose not to.


I understand what you're saying, but I don't think there's even one precedent that would support it. And, honestly, the Supreme Court has long had a thing about sex and sex talk that it does not apply to any other area of speech. Pulling ethnic slurs into that same category seems beyond unlikely to me, particularly with this court. (Yes, I know there's the fighting words case, but it's really old and nobody thinks the court would rule the same way today.)


KatValeska



Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 1830
Location: Colorado


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/14 10:06 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's unbelievable to me that this is even a matter of discussion in 2014. The word the shoddy football team in Washington uses as it's sick franchise name originally meant proof of Indian kill. In the Denver area particularly, all too often this included the private parts of women. Anyone defending the use of this slur is in serious need of either an education or a conscience. I've stopped following the NFL and will not tune back in until the league joins the 21st century.

Oh, and that survey sited in the original post in this thread was taken in Pennsylvania from "self-identified" Native Americans - meaning it is as meaningless as any poll possibly could be.


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/14 12:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Dan Snyder and his team need to just give this one up. The outcome is inevitable, so why prolong the obvious.

Get out in front of it and try to turn the name change into a positive.


Youth Coach



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 4304



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/14 7:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

When the FCC starts threatening to fine people who use the N word, then they can have a leg to stand on to threaten to fine for Redskins.

I don't understand how they can so easily get around that pesky freedom of speech argument.
Mysticsfan12



Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 450



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/14 11:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Redskins is a derogatory term for Natives. It's basically the Native American version for the N word. In fact, maybe I shouldn't even write that. Yeah, I'll cll them "Washington Football team" from now on.



_________________
❄️❄️❄️ ❄️❄️❄️
❄️ ❄️ ❄️ ❄️
❄️ ❄️ ❄️
❄️❄️❄️ ❄️ ❄️
❄️ ❄️❄️
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 6:21 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Youth Coach wrote:
When the FCC starts threatening to fine people who use the N word, then they can have a leg to stand on to threaten to fine for Redskins.

I don't understand how they can so easily get around that pesky freedom of speech argument.


The FCC rules for "cablecasting" is different than for over the air (OTA) broadcasting. It only holds cable carriers liable for content for which it has editorial control - which is practically nothing on cable.

Of what it does regulate, there is a LOT of subjectivity to it:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-profanity-faq

...and context is a consideration.

But personally, I find the R word offensive.




Last edited by TonyL222 on 10/03/14 10:11 am; edited 1 time in total
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 7:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The FCC shouldn't be in the business of regulating content at all.



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 10:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
The FCC shouldn't be in the business of regulating content at all.


Your all over the government agency map today. The TSA isn't doing enough and the FCC is doing too much.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 10:31 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The FCC shouldn't be in the business of regulating content at all.


Your all over the government agency map today. The TSA isn't doing enough and the FCC is doing too much.


Nobody's been killed by naughty words on a television



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 10:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The FCC shouldn't be in the business of regulating content at all.


Your all over the government agency map today. The TSA isn't doing enough and the FCC is doing too much.


Nobody's been killed by naughty words on a television


....and how does that relate to your positions on the TSA (which you previously have said was not needed) and the FCC? I'm confused.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 10:39 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
TonyL222 wrote:
pilight wrote:
The FCC shouldn't be in the business of regulating content at all.


Your all over the government agency map today. The TSA isn't doing enough and the FCC is doing too much.


Nobody's been killed by naughty words on a television


I am a long-time critic of the indecency rule. It's more or less turned into a rule about taste, particularly when it comes to words. "Saving Private Ryan" and NPR's broadcast of a surveillance tape that contained every possible variation of the F word are okay, and Howard Stern is not, at least according to FCC decisions, and that makes no sense to me except as a judgment about what's "worthy" and what's not.


StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10093
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/14 6:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

rykhala wrote:
Well, they are not Indian names at all. They are no different than any of the hundreds of racial slurs. I am sure that we can all agree that it would be awful to have teams called the Spics, Wetbacks, Degos, Kikes, Tar Babies, Lesbos, Chinks, Gooks, Coons, or Spooks. Why is it so hard to understand how inflammatory Redskins team name is?


There actually is a high school in Pekin, Illinois, where their school team's nickname is actually called The Chinks. The school administration wanted to officially change the name to The Dragons. But many of the students and alumni still refer to it by their racist nickname.

http://gaijinass.com/2010/07/24/pekin-chinks-windsor-swastikas-atlanta-black-crackers/


TonyL222



Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/04/14 8:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sooooo, how we can we stop state and local governments from using images of the Confederate flag in an official capacity? It's a highly offensive symbol to me.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 10:43 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Redskins cite other protected products in trademark appeal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/take-yo-panties-off-defense-redskins-cite-other-protected-products-in-trademark-appeal/2015/11/03/d6501692-81b8-11e5-8ba6-cec48b74b2a7_story.html

Quote:
"By way of example only, the following marks are registered today: Take Yo Panties Off clothing; Dangerous Negro shirts . . . Midget-Man condoms and inflatable sex dolls, the Redskins lawyers wrote in their opening brief filed Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond. The lawyers later added a footnote with 31 more trademark registrations, many of them unprintable in The Washington Post. On the list: Party With Sluts . . . Redneck Army apparel . . . Booty Call sex aids . . . Dumb Blonde hair products.



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4439
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 1:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Redskins cite other protected products in trademark appeal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/take-yo-panties-off-defense-redskins-cite-other-protected-products-in-trademark-appeal/2015/11/03/d6501692-81b8-11e5-8ba6-cec48b74b2a7_story.html

Quote:
"By way of example only, the following marks are registered today: Take Yo Panties Off clothing; Dangerous Negro shirts . . . Midget-Man condoms and inflatable sex dolls, the Redskins lawyers wrote in their opening brief filed Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond. The lawyers later added a footnote with 31 more trademark registrations, many of them unprintable in The Washington Post. On the list: Party With Sluts . . . Redneck Army apparel . . . Booty Call sex aids . . . Dumb Blonde hair products.


This is a colorful and persuasive argument tactic by the Redskins. The District Court judge cancelled the "Redskins" trademark partially on the grounds that registered trademarks are a form of "government speech" -- because they are listed in an official goverment database in the Patent & Trademark Office -- and the goverment can cancel a trademark if the general public would think that the government is "endorsing" some disparaging message transmitted by the trademark. In this case, I suppose, the government is arguing that the general public will think the federal government is disparaging native American Indians if the word "Redskins" remains in the PTO database.

The Redskins make reductio ad absurdum and pretext arguments against this alleged governmental endorsement fear. In their brief they point to all sorts of other disparaging trademarks about which the federal government has never voiced any "endorsement" concerns:

". . . how will the government explain registrations like MARIJUANA FOR SALE, CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, LICENSED SERIAL KILLER, YID DISH, DIRTY WHOOORE CLOTHING COMPANY, and MURDER 4 HIRE?"

"Other startling examples that would reflect government endorsement under the decision below include: SHANK THE B!T@H board game; CRACKA AZZ SKATEBOARDS; ANAL FANTASY COLLECTION, KLITORIS, and OMAZING SEX TOYS sex toys; HOT OCTOPUSS anti-premature ejaculation creams; OL GEEZER wines; EDIBLE CROTCHLESS GUMMY PANTIES lingerie; WTF WORK? online forum; MILF WEED bags; GRINGO STYLE SALSA; MAKE YOUR OWN DILDO; GRINGO BBQ; CONTEMPORARY NEGRO, FDUP, WHITE TRASH REBEL, I LOVE VAGINA, WHITE GIRL WITH A BOOTY, PARTY WITH SLUTS, CRIPPLED OLD BIKER BASTARDS, DICK BALLS, and REDNECK ARMY apparel; OH! MY NAPPY HAIR shampoos; REFORMED WHORES and WHORES FROM HELL musical bands; LAUGHING MY VAGINA OFF entertainment; NAPPY ROOTS records; BOOTY CALL sex aids; BOYS ARE STUPID, THROW ROCKS AT THEM wallets; and DUMB BLONDE hair products. Word limits prevent us from listing more."

And the law is supposed to be dull.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 2:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
This is a colorful and persuasive argument tactic by the Redskins.


It makes for a good legal argument. It remains to be seen if claiming your mark to be no more or less crude than Twatty Girl is a good business decision.



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12394



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 2:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
This is a colorful and persuasive argument tactic by the Redskins.


It makes for a good legal argument. It remains to be seen if claiming your mark to be no more or less crude than Twatty Girl is a good business decision.


It's not even a good or persuasive legal argument.

That a trademark went through without objection doesn't mean that any of those would stand up if someone actually bothered to file an objection to them.

But hey, if you're their lawyer, you do the best with the hand you're dealt.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 3:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
This is a colorful and persuasive argument tactic by the Redskins.


It makes for a good legal argument. It remains to be seen if claiming your mark to be no more or less crude than Twatty Girl is a good business decision.


It's not even a good or persuasive legal argument.

That a trademark went through without objection doesn't mean that any of those would stand up if someone actually bothered to file an objection to them.

But hey, if you're their lawyer, you do the best with the hand you're dealt.

Yeah, that was my take on this too.

"But they're getting away with it, so why can't we?" tends to be a poor argument, at least in cases that I have researched in the past. Whether or not this name is entitled to trademark protection or not has to live or die on its own merits. All the government has to say to the others is that they would likely revoke those trademarks also if someone asked them to.

SCOTUS just ruled this past June that the Government was allowed to refuse certain designs on personalized plates (specifically, the Confederate Battle Flag) because it would make it seem like they were endorsing a specific type of speech. It does not seem a stretch to apply the same reasoning here in this case.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4439
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 4:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
pilight wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
This is a colorful and persuasive argument tactic by the Redskins.


It makes for a good legal argument. It remains to be seen if claiming your mark to be no more or less crude than Twatty Girl is a good business decision.


It's not even a good or persuasive legal argument.

That a trademark went through without objection doesn't mean that any of those would stand up if someone actually bothered to file an objection to them.

But hey, if you're their lawyer, you do the best with the hand you're dealt.


The argument is not focused on whether any of these names are disparaging. That's a separate factual issue.

The Team's primary attack on the cancellation decision is that the disparagement provision in the Lanham (trademark) Act violates the First Amendment. One way the District Court avoided this conclusion was to hold that the disparagement clause satisfies the (intermediate scrutiny) constitutional standard of "directly advancing a substantial governmental interest". By pointing out that the government has registered all sorts of crude and disparaging names, the Team is providing strong factual argumentation that refusing to register disparaging trademarks has never been historically treated as a substantial governmental interest. (It may be a substantial interest to the disparaged party, who is free to challenge the registration.)

Thus, through this argument, the Team is asking the Circuit Court to reverse the holding about the applicability of the First Amendment. If that holding is reversed, the First Amendment pops back as a potentially a priori protector of the word "redskins". And if that happens, the entire factual issue about disparagement becomes moot and irrelevant.

Hence, the argument is a good one about a crucial constitutional issue.

By the way, the factual issue in the case is stipulated to be whether a "substantial composite" of Native American Indians believed "redskins" to be a disparaging word in 1967. And since this case is on a motion for summary judgment, all factual evidence was supposed to be viewed in the light most favorable to the Team.

It's also apparently factually unchallenged that "of the over three million trademarks registered since 1870, no registration has ever been retroactively cancelled for being disparaging. The Redskins are the first and only."
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17836



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 5:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

TonyL222 wrote:
Sooooo, how we can we stop state and local governments from using images of the Confederate flag in an official capacity? It's a highly offensive symbol to me.


I don't know how that possibly still exists.

And the Redskins situation is ridiculous as well.

It's not about what you can do, it's about what you should do. And when a country commits a genocide against a group of people it definitely should not use derogatory names of those people for entertainment.

Ridiculous.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 5:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
The argument is not focused on whether any of these names are disparaging. That's a separate factual issue.

The Team's primary attack on the cancellation decision is that the disparagement provision in the Lanham (trademark) Act violates the First Amendment. One way the District Court avoided this conclusion was to hold that the disparagement clause satisfies the (intermediate scrutiny) constitutional standard of "directly advancing a substantial governmental interest". By pointing out that the government has registered all sorts of crude and disparaging names, the Team is providing strong factual argumentation that refusing to register disparaging trademarks has never been historically treated as a substantial governmental interest. (It may be a substantial interest to the disparaged party, who is free to challenge the registration.)

Thus, through this argument, the Team is asking the Circuit Court to reverse the holding about the applicability of the First Amendment. If that holding is reversed, the First Amendment pops back as a potentially a priori protector of the word "redskins". And if that happens, the entire factual issue about disparagement becomes moot and irrelevant.

Hence, the argument is a good one about a crucial constitutional issue.

By the way, the factual issue in the case is stipulated to be whether a "substantial composite" of Native American Indians believed "redskins" to be a disparaging word in 1967. And since this case is on a motion for summary judgment, all factual evidence was supposed to be viewed in the light most favorable to the Team.

It's also apparently factually unchallenged that "of the over three million trademarks registered since 1870, no registration has ever been retroactively cancelled for being disparaging. The Redskins are the first and only."


As a list, it's actually pretty crummy, since it has all sorts of items on it that are obnoxious but not disparaging (and, of course, many of them are meant to be sold to the target group, which actually is a pretty significant distinction). I imagine that the judges likely will look past the overinclusiveness, although if the team loses, I bet you'll see something in the opinion about how it's obvious you can distinguish many of the examples from what happened here.

I don't know nearly enough about this to have a strong view on whether the team has a good First Amendment argument, but it does appear on its face that it's trying to get the court to think that initial trademark applications and existing trademarks that are challenged really are the same thing for the purposes of the legal analysis. I'm not sure that's a winning argument, as I think anyone would agree that the number of trademark applications in any given year makes it impossible to give them the kind of close scrutiny that you get in a complaint case like this one.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4439
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 5:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
The argument is not focused on whether any of these names are disparaging. That's a separate factual issue.

The Team's primary attack on the cancellation decision is that the disparagement provision in the Lanham (trademark) Act violates the First Amendment. One way the District Court avoided this conclusion was to hold that the disparagement clause satisfies the (intermediate scrutiny) constitutional standard of "directly advancing a substantial governmental interest". By pointing out that the government has registered all sorts of crude and disparaging names, the Team is providing strong factual argumentation that refusing to register disparaging trademarks has never been historically treated as a substantial governmental interest. (It may be a substantial interest to the disparaged party, who is free to challenge the registration.)

Thus, through this argument, the Team is asking the Circuit Court to reverse the holding about the applicability of the First Amendment. If that holding is reversed, the First Amendment pops back as a potentially a priori protector of the word "redskins". And if that happens, the entire factual issue about disparagement becomes moot and irrelevant.

Hence, the argument is a good one about a crucial constitutional issue.

By the way, the factual issue in the case is stipulated to be whether a "substantial composite" of Native American Indians believed "redskins" to be a disparaging word in 1967. And since this case is on a motion for summary judgment, all factual evidence was supposed to be viewed in the light most favorable to the Team.

It's also apparently factually unchallenged that "of the over three million trademarks registered since 1870, no registration has ever been retroactively cancelled for being disparaging. The Redskins are the first and only."


As a list, it's actually pretty crummy, since it has all sorts of items on it that are obnoxious but not disparaging (and, of course, many of them are meant to be sold to the target group, which actually is a pretty significant distinction). I imagine that the judges likely will look past the overinclusiveness, although if the team loses, I bet you'll see something in the opinion about how it's obvious you can distinguish many of the examples from what happened here.

I don't know nearly enough about this to have a strong view on whether the team has a good First Amendment argument, but it does appear on its face that it's trying to get the court to think that initial trademark applications and existing trademarks that are challenged really are the same thing for the purposes of the legal analysis. I'm not sure that's a winning argument, as I think anyone would agree that the number of trademark applications in any given year makes it impossible to give them the kind of close scrutiny that you get in a complaint case like this one.


The Team is attacking the District Court holding on several fronts:

-- That the disparagment provision in the Lanham Act must be tested by strict scrutiny to survive under the First Amendment. The District Court apparently held that intermediate scrutiny applies.

-- That the disparament provision can't survive intermediate scrutiny. This is the portion of the brief in which all the colorful trademarks are cited.

-- That registered trademarks are not government speech, like words on license plates in the Texas license plate case, which the District Court held to be an applicable precedent.

-- That the disparagement provision is constitutionally void for vagueness -- i.e., "disparaging" is too subjective to provide constitutional guidance. And it's also void for fostering arbitrary enforcement.

-- That "substantial composite" means a preponderance of the evidence.

-- That raising a disparagement claim retrospectively after decades of acquiescence by the government and all potential disparagees, and after huge financial reliance by the Team on the validity of the trademarks, violates due process.

-- That such a delay raises the procedural bar of laches (i.e., it's too late in the game to bring suit). This identical case was dismissed on the basis of laches in the 2009 Harjo decision.

-- That, on the merits and using the proper standard, the name "Redskins" is not disparaging.

It's a very persuasive brief by Arnold & Porter and Quinn Emmanuel. I'm eager to see the opposing brief.

Interestingly, the complainants are not seeking a copyright cancellation of the "Hail to the Redskins" marching song.

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kPVfFzbRuc4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11025
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 9:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If a brief is any good, it ought to seem convincing. If you don't sound convincing when you make your own argument, you're in trouble.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12394



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 9:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As I understand it the Dist Ct found there is no 1st Amendment issue because the Govt is not doing anything to abridge anyone's freedom of speech. The team is free to speak, print, or otherwise use the offensive word all they want, anywhere they want, anytime they want, without any interference.

The First Amenment doesn't guarantee exclusivity.

I fail to see the flaw in that analysis, which appears spot on to me.

If the First Amenment isn't even implicated, the discussion of standards of review is pointless.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12394



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/15 10:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:


It's a very persuasive brief by Arnold & Porter and Quinn Emmanuel. I'm eager to see the opposing brief.


It's well written, as I would expect. And the arguments on disparagement and standard of scrutiny are fine.

Problem is, I don't think they ever get to that point. I find the discussion of why there even is supposedly a First Amendment issue to be superficial, conclusory, and wholly unpersuasive. I see no reason why your Constitutional right to speak includes any right to exclude others from speaking. And that's certainly not explained. Nor is the conclusory assumption that removing the profitability of your speech abridges your right to speak. It's presented as essentially obvious when it is anything but. But as I said before, you do the best you can with the hand you're dealt.


Hawkeye



Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 501
Location: Houston, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/05/15 3:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Mysticsfan12 wrote:
Redskins is a derogatory term for Natives. It's basically the Native American version for the N word. In fact, maybe I shouldn't even write that. Yeah, I'll cll them "Washington Football team" from now on.


If it's so bad and needs to be changed, then why do schools on some reservations use Redskins as their mascot? Until all Native American schools drop the moniker, it isn't even worth talking about because it's BOGUS.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/05/15 4:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hawkeye wrote:
Mysticsfan12 wrote:
Redskins is a derogatory term for Natives. It's basically the Native American version for the N word. In fact, maybe I shouldn't even write that. Yeah, I'll cll them "Washington Football team" from now on.


If it's so bad and needs to be changed, then why do schools on some reservations use Redskins as their mascot? Until all Native American schools drop the moniker, it isn't even worth talking about because it's BOGUS.

Two things:

1) Not all NAs think the term is derogatory. However, a sizable--and growing--portion of them do. And that is enough. This is a group that had mass genocide committed against them by this country. We should take their wishes seriously. Even if it were only 10% of their population (it's significantly more than that) that should be enough to not name a sports team that.

2) This is the equivalent of saying that because some African-Americans call each other by the n-word, or that because the word "Negro" was used by MLK and is still used by the UNCF it would be acceptable to use it in a team name.

What this is, is a case of confirmation bias where someone just listens to the people who agree with their position in order to justify doing what they want. But ignoring the significant portion of a disadvantaged class who tells them otherwise.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 15571
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/05/15 10:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Adidas is supplying design support and financial resources to help high schools shift away from Native American mascots: http://espn.go.com/moresports/story/_/id/14057043/adidas-offers-help-eliminate-native-american-mascots



_________________
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.
Hawkeye



Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 501
Location: Houston, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/06/15 7:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Hawkeye wrote:
Mysticsfan12 wrote:
Redskins is a derogatory term for Natives. It's basically the Native American version for the N word. In fact, maybe I shouldn't even write that. Yeah, I'll cll them "Washington Football team" from now on.


If it's so bad and needs to be changed, then why do schools on some reservations use Redskins as their mascot? Until all Native American schools drop the moniker, it isn't even worth talking about because it's BOGUS.

Two things:

1) Not all NAs think the term is derogatory. However, a sizable--and growing--portion of them do. And that is enough. This is a group that had mass genocide committed against them by this country. We should take their wishes seriously. Even if it were only 10% of their population (it's significantly more than that) that should be enough to not name a sports team that.


2) This is the equivalent of saying that because some African-Americans call each other by the n-word, or that because the word "Negro" was used by MLK and is still used by the UNCF it would be acceptable to use it in a team name.


You're mixing things---there are no schools that use the n-word or Negro as a team mascot. There ARE however, native american schools that use Redskins as a team mascot. The change the name call has come from a relatively small, loud and decently funded group that has used social media and PC desires to push their agenda onto a visible target like the NFL and the Redskins. The team has been the Redskins since 1933. The name isn't changing. The PC Police won't win this one. The NCAA may have been pushovers, but the NFL and Dan Snyder are a whole different story.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6680
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/06/15 7:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hawkeye wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Hawkeye wrote:
Mysticsfan12 wrote:
Redskins is a derogatory term for Natives. It's basically the Native American version for the N word. In fact, maybe I shouldn't even write that. Yeah, I'll cll them "Washington Football team" from now on.


If it's so bad and needs to be changed, then why do schools on some reservations use Redskins as their mascot? Until all Native American schools drop the moniker, it isn't even worth talking about because it's BOGUS.

Two things:

1) Not all NAs think the term is derogatory. However, a sizable--and growing--portion of them do. And that is enough. This is a group that had mass genocide committed against them by this country. We should take their wishes seriously. Even if it were only 10% of their population (it's significantly more than that) that should be enough to not name a sports team that.


2) This is the equivalent of saying that because some African-Americans call each other by the n-word, or that because the word "Negro" was used by MLK and is still used by the UNCF it would be acceptable to use it in a team name.


You're mixing things---there are no schools that use the n-word or Negro as a team mascot. There ARE however, native american schools that use Redskins as a team mascot. The change the name call has come from a relatively small, loud and decently funded group that has used social media and PC desires to push their agenda onto a visible target like the NFL and the Redskins. The team has been the Redskins since 1933. The name isn't changing. The PC Police won't win this one. The NCAA may have been pushovers, but the NFL and Dan Snyder are a whole different story.

So what percent of a group that we committed freaking GENOCIDE against needs to feel it is offensive before we are willing to change something as insignificant as a sports team's name?

5%? 10%? A majority? All of them?

That is what my point was about the usage of a word, even by members of that demographic, not equating to it being inoffensive. You are treating this as if it were zero sum, where it has to be offensive to everyone within that demographic, or else it is fair game. Well, that is not how these things work. It is enough that a significant portion of this demographic is telling us that it is offensive to them. We have no right to tell them it isn't. Native Americans are not one homogeneous group who all see things in the same way. They are a collective of hundreds of different nations. So just because one group uses the name as their reservation's school mascot doesn't mean that the word isn't sincerely offensive to others within that collective who have had different experiences.

This comes down to how the issue is framed. I see people point to things like reservation schools, or ESPN polls, and focus on how many Native Americans agree with thir viewpoint. Oh see, 65% say the name is not offensive. Yet framed differently, we could say 35% of a populous whom we committed atrocities against is telling us that they ARE offended. Yet we are going to tell them we don't care what they think?



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 17836



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/06/15 10:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:

So what percent of a group that we committed freaking GENOCIDE against needs to feel it is offensive before we are willing to change something as insignificant as a sports team's name?

5%? 10%? A majority? All of them?

That is what my point was about the usage of a word, even by members of that demographic, not equating to it being inoffensive. You are treating this as if it were zero sum, where it has to be offensive to everyone within that demographic, or else it is fair game. Well, that is not how these things work. It is enough that a significant portion of this demographic is telling us that it is offensive to them. We have no right to tell them it isn't. Native Americans are not one homogeneous group who all see things in the same way. They are a collective of hundreds of different nations. So just because one group uses the name as their reservation's school mascot doesn't mean that the word isn't sincerely offensive to others within that collective who have had different experiences.

This comes down to how the issue is framed. I see people point to things like reservation schools, or ESPN polls, and focus on how many Native Americans agree with thir viewpoint. Oh see, 65% say the name is not offensive. Yet framed differently, we could say 35% of a populous whom we committed atrocities against is telling us that they ARE offended. Yet we are going to tell them we don't care what they think?




It's not about what we can legally do, it's about what we should morally do. Period.



_________________
TALENT

What it takes to play a gay pirate, a gay candymaker, and a gay mad hatter, and still land a role as John Dilinger.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12394



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/07/15 12:13 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Hawkeye wrote:
The team has been the Redskins since 1933.


This is without question the most pointless argument regarding the entire issue. Who cares if its been the name for a month or for 500 years? If it's offensive today, then it's offensive today and should change.

Hawkeye wrote:

The name isn't changing. The PC Police won't win this one. The NCAA may have been pushovers, but the NFL and Dan Snyder are a whole different story.


I wouldn't be so sure. They're going to lose their trademark protection. That is going to happen. And when they do, they're going to lose all their merchandising revenue when anybody and everybody is free to make Redskins merchandise and sell it for half of Danny's prices without paying a dime to Danny for licensing rights. Is Danny stubborn enough to stick to the name and give up all that revenue (and he'll probably be in breach of all sorts of licensing agreements whereby he promised to ensure exclusive rights to use the name, including to NFL Properties)? Maybe he is, but I think he's even greedier than he is stubborn. The days for that name are numbered.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4439
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/24/15 3:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yesterday, in a 9-3 decision called In re Tam, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held the the disparagement provision of the federal Lanham (trademark) Act -- which allows the government to cancel ''scandalous, disparaging or immoral marks" -- to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment for a variety of reasons.

This is exactly the argument that the Redskins are making in their trademark case in the Fourth Circuit, as I have summarized in previous posts. Thus, while this Federal Circuit case is not legally binding on the Fourth Circuit in the Redskins case, the logic and ruling are directly on point, and In re Tam is hence powerful new legal authority in favor of the Redskins.

If the Fourth Circuit in the Redskins case decides to follow the precedent of In re Tam, that will probably be the end of this issue: the disparagement exception to the trademark statute will be treated as legally void by all courts from now on, based on the precedent of two federal Circuits. However, if the Fourth Circuit disagrees with In re Tam on the constitutional issue, there will then be a split in the federal Circuits, which will have to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

The legal game isn't over for the Redskins, but they now have possession of the ball in the paint.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55568
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/19/16 9:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans arent offended by Redskins name

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

Quote:
Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the teams name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39.



_________________
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4439
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/19/16 11:55 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans arent offended by Redskins name

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

Quote:
Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the teams name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39.


More quotes from the article, which is behind paywall:

Quote:
Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football teams moniker.

The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the exact same result. Responses to The Posts questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word Redskin was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number 8 in 10 said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.


The Redskins ownership has frequently cited the 2004 poll in refusing to change the name, and that poll has now been validated 12 years later.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4439
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/20/16 10:38 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ESPN Panel Incensed That Native Americans Too Dumb to Be Offended by Redskins

Quote:
Moral of the story, the Washington Post poll is a shining testament to the fact that the sports medias jihad against the Reskins has absolutely nothing to do with Native Americans, and everything to do with a social justice warrior vendetta against a Republican owner who donates to GOP candidates and has Fox News anchors in the owners box as guests.

Nothing more to see here.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin