EasternOHBillsFan Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) Looks as if finally this "offensive" trademark business the Redskins got caught up in has been struck down as unconsititutional. Common sense and free speech prevail. "Holding that the registration of a trademark converts the mark into government speech would constitute a huge and dangerous extension of the government-speech doctrine, for other systems of government registration (such as copyright) could easily be characterized in the same way," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. "The commercial market is well stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case illustrates," Alito added. "If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social 'volatility,' free speech would be endangered." http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/supreme-court-redskins/index.html Edited June 19, 2017 by BmoreBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Thank god. With so many other distractions this issue can be put to bed as snowflakes continue find other causes to melt down over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 The folks that want to use the Constitution as a basis for outlawing the Redskins' logo are the sort that like to legislate from the bench. The only free speech they like is the speech they already agree with, so the notion that some speech will be curtailed, so long as it is articulating something they disdain, is unlikely to bother them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Isn't this PPP material? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Quint Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 If teams want to change their logos and team names, it should be on their own accord. Any publicity (positive or negative) should be the results of their choices, not a court order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Thank god. With so many other distractions this issue can be put to bed as snowflakes continue find other causes to melt down over. Spoken like a true redneck. oh wait... was that offensive? Just kidding around Boyst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Isn't this PPP material? This directly involves an NFL team, so Off the Wall does seem to apply to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) This directly involves an NFL team, so Off the Wall does seem to apply to it. I struggled with where to put it but as it is NFL news other than Buffalo Bills, I chose OTW. Also, it represents a more balanced view of fans there as well. Edited June 19, 2017 by BmoreBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 I am so done with that team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 I am so done with that team... Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 they're not going to change it so there's no point for the "activists" to keep protesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) I struggled with where to put it but as it is NFL news other than Buffalo Bills, I chose OTW. Also, it represents a more balanced view of fans there as well. Sorry bout that it's easy to see why people want to stay on the lighter side of things. I've read enough to see that, eventually it would end up here. At lead here I can use my other names for the skins Edited June 19, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Charles C. W. Cooke ✔@charlescwcooke 8-0. The First Amendment is a beautiful thing. https://twitter.com/BrianKenMiller/status/876829581386424320 … 12:34 PM - 19 Jun 2017 The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment has a very broad scope. Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment Howard Dean and Chris Cuomo hardest hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Isn't this PPP material? Not when it's an 8-0 ruling in favor of common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Spoken like a true redneck. oh wait... was that offensive? Just kidding around Boyst I wouldn't care if you weren't. I'm not a pussified man, froot, snowflake or democrat. Names mean nothing to me. Only a insecure feeble minded person gets worked up over an insult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) Supreme Court rules in favor of The Slants in trademark dispute Don't they know that dems know what is best for them? The Supreme Court has ruled 8-0 that it is unconstitutional for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to not register offensive names under the federal trademark law’s disparagement clause. The Asian-American band The Slants did not receive a trademark due to this clause, which the justices found violated free speech. From CNN: Edited June 19, 2017 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) they're not going to change it so there's no point for the "activists" to keep protestingI'm sure the 'activists' won't agree. There are a few hard core SJWs on this board when it comes to the Redskins. Edited June 19, 2017 by KD in CA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 rule 34 is the best rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuvian Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 I am so sick of PC nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts