Washington native americans

I didn't know trademarks had to be non-offensive.
Obama just does what he wants, and to hell with Law. Even if he can't win a lawsuit, Obama will make Snyder spend millions during the legal fight to penalize him. Why? Because laws aren't important to Obama.


Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
I didn't know trademarks had to be non-offensive.


I know there's a lot of purposeful stupidity being exercised here, most notably the notion that President Obama, through the federal Patent & Trademark Office, is somehow curtailing free speech. Now THAT'S some stupidity.

Congress passed a law refusing the federal government the power to issue a patent or trademark if it consists of matter that "disparage[s] or falsely suggest[s] a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute".

Yesterday, five Native Americans convinced the office that the Washington Redskins did just that, that their attempts to maintain a trademark on the word "Redskins" was in fact disparaging of Native Americans. And so the trademark was withdrawn.

People of course remain free to continue to humiliate themselves by using the awful word "Redskins". Free speech and all that.

But no one can claim the protections of trademark law for it, the federal laws that protect a word or term's use in trade won't apply to "Redskins", if the office's ruling survives appeal.
Oh my. When did the pay for the trademark? Forkie is happy about a law that limits free speech. I'm not.


Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot
I know there's a lot of purposeful stupidity being exercised here, most notably the notion that President Obama, through the federal Patent & Trademark Office, is somehow curtailing free speech. Now THAT'S some stupidity.

Congress passed a law refusing the federal government the power to issue a patent or trademark if it consists of matter that "disparage[s] or falsely suggest[s] a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute".

Yesterday, five Native Americans convinced the office that the Washington Redskins did just that, that their attempts to maintain a trademark on the word "Redskins" was in fact disparaging of Native Americans. And so the trademark was withdrawn.

People of course remain free to continue to humiliate themselves by using the awful word "Redskins". Free speech and all that.

But no one can claim the protections of trademark law for it, the federal laws that protect a word or term's use in trade won't apply to "Redskins", if the office's ruling survives appeal.



Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Oh my. When did the pay for the trademark? Forkie is happy about a law that limits free speech. I'm not.
And here I thought you were only a Second Amendment absolutist. You're branching out!

I'm happy about A LOT of laws that limit free speech. Like those that outlaw:

  • Child pornography
  • Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater
  • Conspiring to overthrow the US government
  • Libel
  • Slander
  • Perjury
  • Fraud
  • False advertising
  • Stealing intellectual property
  • Conspiring to commit crimes (terrorism, murder, etc.)
    and...
  • The trademarking of inappropriate material as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

    Boilerman, if you are opposed to ALL limitations on free speech, including some of those above, well let's just say I disagree.
  • The word Redskins qualify as any of these things, but thanks for the effort.


    Quote

    Originally posted by: forkushV
    Quote

    Originally posted by: Boilerman
    Oh my. When did the pay for the trademark? Forkie is happy about a law that limits free speech. I'm not.
    And here I thought you were only a Second Amendment absolutist. You're branching out!

    I'm happy about A LOT of laws that limit free speech. Like those that outlaw:

  • Child pornography
  • Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater
  • Conspiring to overthrow the US government
  • Libel
  • Slander
  • Perjury
  • Fraud
  • False advertising
  • Stealing intellectual property
  • Conspiring to commit crimes (terrorism, murder, etc.)
    and...
  • The trademarking of inappropriate material as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

    Boilerman, if you are opposed to ALL limitations on free speech, including some of those above, well let's just say I disagree.


  • Quote

    Originally posted by: Boilerman
    The word Redskins qualify as any of these things, but thanks for the effort...
    You're welcome! And you obviously missed this one:

  • "The trademarking of inappropriate material as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States*."



  • *Who was NOT Barack Obama (if that makes it better for you, Boilerman).
    I guess this doesn't bode well for my 'Fuck You Asshole, You Suck' trademark application.
    Quote

    Originally posted by: alanleroyII
    I guess this doesn't bode well for my 'Fuck You Asshole, You Suck' trademark application.


    No, but you might consider starting a "word association" thread with that phrase.
    Quote

    Originally posted by: forkushV
    Quote

    Originally posted by: Boilerman
    Oh my. When did the pay for the trademark? Forkie is happy about a law that limits free speech. I'm not.
    And here I thought you were only a Second Amendment absolutist. You're branching out!

    I'm happy about A LOT of laws that limit free speech. Like those that outlaw:

  • Child pornography
  • Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater
  • Conspiring to overthrow the US government
  • Libel
  • Slander
  • Perjury =====Bill Clinton?
  • Fraud
  • False advertising
  • Stealing intellectual property
  • Conspiring to commit crimes (terrorism, murder, etc.)
    and...
  • The trademarking of inappropriate material as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

    Boilerman, if you are opposed to ALL limitations on free speech, including some of those above, well let's just say I disagree.


  • Already a LVA subscriber?
    To continue reading, choose an option below:
    Diamond Membership
    $3 per month
    Unlimited access to LVA website
    Exclusive subscriber-only content
    Limited Member Rewards Online
    Join Now
    or
    Platinum Membership
    $50 per year
    Unlimited access to LVA website
    Exclusive subscriber-only content
    Exclusive Member Rewards Book
    Join Now