Why the Redskins trademark ruling should terrify you.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Why the Redskins trademark ruling should terrify you.

This ruling isn’t a slippery slope. It’s a slope we’ve already slid down: bureaucrats in Washington are now empowered to make subjective decrees about what is offensive and what will be tolerated, based on pressure from a small clique of Washington insiders. Anyone who runs afoul of these decrees, anyone branded as regressive and politically incorrect, is declared outside the protection of the federal government.

And what do we call people who like to wield that kind of oppressive power? I call them fascists. They hate it when I do that, but I am actually not name-calling but applying a very accurate description to their behavior.

Share

13 comments

  • ted

    http://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/native-american-culture/war-paint.htm

    Paint was commonly used to protected the skin from insects, the sun, the wind and the cold. Red ochre was in plentiful supply so this was the most common application, hence the term ‘Redskins’.

  • John Steiger

    The Redskins trademark ruling was based upon the evidence before the Tribunal. It was not arrived at subjectively or as a result of the other fearmongering which you allege. You are a very impressive reporter … when you focus upon the issues within your purview and expertise.

  • Cotour

    It’s because its the “right” thing to do. That should be enough justification for this administration to force, strike that, strongly suggest that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to issue this decree. Who would dare challenge the decision and what is “right” ?

    When will they make it a federal crime to say the N word? Or even more right, when will the government make denying the Holocaust a federal crime? Or when a child holds up his finger like a gun? People have feelings and if another person makes them feel bad they should lose something, like their money or their freedom!

    BS administration, BS president, BS Marxism, BS American Fascism, more and more BS, self righteous, subjective political BS. That’s a lot of BS.

  • wodun

    ” I call them fascists”

    People will argue that it doesn’t fit the text book definition of a fascist but tyrants can be from any ideology.

  • Steve C

    I recommend the team change their name to the San Antonio Redskins.

  • Edward

    Maybe I missed it, after all, I am not a trademark attorney, but I didn’t find anything on the USPTO.gov website that said that a trademark must not offend anyone. So what evidence was presented that drove the tribunal to rescind the trademark? How is being offended *not* subjective?

    Does this mean that the American NAZI Party does not get to register any trademarks, because some people are offended by them? Don’t you suppose that the NAZIs are offended by the Jewish Defense League? How about La Raza; after all, there is more than *one* race, and to choose a name that suggests that a race is *THE* race could offend a few people, don’t you think (or should no one be offended by white supremacists)?

    How about Chic-fil-a? There were protests of them a couple of years ago, so should they lose their trademark(s)?

    As the article said, “That this is happening, and that we have no idea where it will stop, is what should terrify us.”

    I am appalled that the courts have allowed themselves to be used to harass and extort people, but it is even worse that the rest of the government is also getting into the harassment/extortion racket. Has anyone seen where our freedoms went?

  • DK Williams

    This is a slippery slope. Will trademarks be revoked for the NRA? Behind the Black? Will copyrights be next?

  • LTCStein

    Tyrants. Unless you want a 2nd American Revolution you better vote and vote smart.

  • Max

    Being offensive used to be American. Apparently we have undergone a fundamental change. My wife thinks this is good, and she will start by getting rid of all men’s magazines, beer logos, smoking and alcohol ads, Viagra commercials. And anything else that the majority of people think is offensive. I think it won’t be long before the 99% start tearing things down to get at the 1%…

  • Kelly Starks

    Well Obama did promise a whole new kind of government – and Dems dems are pushing to get first amendment free speech rights trimmed to just the right to speak in favor of their side…. Google firing a exec for daring to support a publicly dominant position the management finds unacceptable. So really its just all part of having “the wise men of Washington” (as Obama referred to them) deciding what our pretty little minds can be allowed to hear, say, or think. After all, Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength!

    =8O

  • Cotour

    Americans themselves are offensive to Native Americans, what will be the solution to that offence?

  • Cotour

    Are you (John Steiger) saying that this issue coming to the forefront of the news and the Patent & Trademark’s decision is not a subjective function of this administration and its agenda?

    Really?

  • Cotour

    Should I assume that you also think that: The IRS / Lois Lerner situation, Fast & Furious, Allowing / encouraging illegal immigrants to swarm the boarders, the giving away of U.S. international power by “leading from behind” etc, etc, etc, etc, (so many agendas to list I will spare you) that all of these items are NOT a function or subjective reflection of this particular administration?

    Again, really?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *