|
Real Washington
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Alouicious posted:
Mascot is a bunch of puppies being euthanized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
 My proposal for a new name http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2014/06/the-washington-rexskins.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
That is some weird rear end DBZ fan art right there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Whys a white dude streaking across county lines?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Parlett316 posted:They will all go once the Redskin name falls because they will have more and more public support. Good, gently caress the Braves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Nybble posted:Chris Cooley, you used to be a lovable goof, now you're just an ignorant Dan Snyder talking head Discussing if the Redskins lose their appeal posted:Czaban: The only good counter argument is to say as soon as the Kansas City Chiefs and the Cleveland Indians and the Florida State Seminoles all want to do this then we’d certainly listen to them if they want us to join their movement to change their names….[Otherwise] say we’ll be the Washington Chiefs and paint a more racist picture on the side of the helmets, a buck-toothed Native American that says Chiefs. It won’t say Redskins, but it’ll be a really ugly Native American. It will not be a proud, dignified Native American. It’ll be very cartoonish, like Chief Wahoo, with a big buck-toothed smile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
But the Chargers are named after horsies...
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
The Washington Drunken Native Peoples.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
So I was talking with a friend about this last night and she said she wasn't really sure why the patent office was able to invalidate the trademark. Her argument was that invalidating it runs afoul of the First Ammendment. Does anyone have any more detailed legal info about the legal validity of removing the trademark? I tried to read the decision but I'm not a lawyer and it just confused me. Essentially, why is the law banning the trademark of slurs constitutionally okay? axeil fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jun 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Parlett316 posted:It's not up to you to decide what is or is not offensive to a group of people. Point to where I said what is or is not offensive to people, retard. I was merely pointing out that the word Chief does not specifically refer to Natives, unless the team attaches Native imagery to it such as the Kansas City Chiefs have done. If KC removed that imagery and allowed it to just refer to the leader of a tribal movement then it could apply to almost any race ever. Stop being an rear end just because your precious Redskins are a loving slur.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
axeil posted:So I was talking with a friend about this last night and she said she wasn't really sure why the patent office was able to invalidate the trademark. Her argument was that invalidating it runs afoul of the First Ammendment. Does anyone have any more detailed legal info about the legal validity of removing the trademark? I tried to read the decision but I'm not a lawyer and it just confused me. The first amendment means you can't go to jail for saying bad things. It has nothing to with trademarking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:The first amendment means you can't go to jail for saying bad things. It has nothing to with trademarking. The modern day average person interpretation of the First Amendment is "You can say anything you want, even really racist stuff, and nobody can get mad at you."
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
axeil posted:So I was talking with a friend about this last night and she said she wasn't really sure why the patent office was able to invalidate the trademark. Her argument was that invalidating it runs afoul of the First Ammendment. Does anyone have any more detailed legal info about the legal validity of removing the trademark? I tried to read the decision but I'm not a lawyer and it just confused me. The short version: Section 2 of the Lanham Act bans registration (and maybe, depending on who you ask, enforcement) of slur trademarks, where registration confers certain benefits. It doesn't ban using those words, just the benefits provided under law. Therefore, no First Amendment problem. (Section 2 actually has been challenged on a First Amendment basis, since it conditions a government-provided benefit on abstention from First Amendment rights. It's not implausible as a theory, but it also hasn't been successful in court since commercial speech receives somewhat lessened First Amendment protection.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
axeil posted:So I was talking with a friend about this last night and she said she wasn't really sure why the patent office was able to invalidate the trademark. Her argument was that invalidating it runs afoul of the First Ammendment. Does anyone have any more detailed legal info about the legal validity of removing the trademark? I tried to read the decision but I'm not a lawyer and it just confused me. My understanding is that Redskin NFL Team is free to use the logo and everything that goes with it, thus satisfying the first amendment. They just can't go after other people for using it, I believe? Taking away the trademark just means that any rear end in a top hat can now use that logo on whatever he wants, and the Washington FC can't do anything about it. If my understanding stated above is correct, the ruling doesn't really take away Snyder et al's right to profit from the racism - it just means that they can't prevent someone else from also profiting from the racism. That understanding is almost exclusively from reading the SA forums, so take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Goddamnit Cooley, no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
DrKennethNoisewater posted:My understanding is that Redskin NFL Team is free to use the logo and everything that goes with it, thus satisfying the first amendment. They just can't go after other people for using it, I believe? Taking away the trademark just means that any rear end in a top hat can now use that logo on whatever he wants, and the Washington FC can't do anything about it. This is correct. No one is saying you legally cannot use the word 'redskin' and that logo, it's just that they don't 'own' that logo and team name anymore so now some other racist rear end in a top hat can make his local community football team The Redskins with that logo or whatever. It's only a violation if the government literally says 'we will punish you for saying redskin', and even then it's kinda been established that hate speech and poo poo isn't 100% protected so even that's a gray area.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Seminole isn't even Native American in the first place. It did have a lot of Creek but it was also runaway slaves, Spanish, whatever showed up and joined the group.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
The interesting thing will be how Redskins merchandise sells if this goes through, considering anyone can open up a shop and sell stuff that's just as officially licensed as the NFL's stuff. Also really, the Cleveland Indians mascot already. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Well you can't put "NFL" on your bootleg Redskins merchandise I'm sure
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The interesting thing will be how Redskins merchandise sells if this goes through, considering anyone can open up a shop and sell stuff that's just as officially licensed as the NFL's stuff.  He's done nothing wrong. I dont follow baseball so I dont know what the gently caress this is, but I expected a big buck-toothed dude with a headdress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Alright, their logo I mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Cleveland uses a big C now instead of chief wahoo a lot
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
I just realized the perfect name for Washington: the Swinging Gates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-tqLG__Al4
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
The entire helmet needs to be that painting or they shouldn't even bother.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
axeil posted:Essentially, why is the law banning the trademark of slurs constitutionally okay? Because slurs belong to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
I feel like the NFL has not been efficient enough with their sponsorship and product placement deals. The Washington Carl's Jrs
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:I feel like the NFL has not been efficient enough with their sponsorship and product placement deals. Would it not be a Hardee's over there
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
Lessail posted:Would it not be a Hardee's over there Carl Jr's is west coast if I'm not mistaken. It's Hardee's in Michigan and Wisconsin as i've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
cucka posted:Carl Jr's is west coast if I'm not mistaken. It's Hardee's in Michigan and Wisconsin as i've seen. The cutoff is like Oklahoma-ish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Quest For Glory II posted:I feel like the NFL has not been efficient enough with their sponsorship and product placement deals. The panthers really have owned the redskins lately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
What about the cleveland browns
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
It would be the Washington Five Guys
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Sash! posted:It would be the Washington Five Guys Which would be fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Isn't income from sales of team merchandise split equally by all teams? Does that mean that this effectively is taking money from the entire league, and will therefore receive the full support of Goodell and the NFL legal team in the appeals process?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Washington Wasps
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
What about the Washington White Guilt
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Washington Fightin' Whities. It seems only fair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
If only they'd moved to Crystal City instead of Landover, we could have a whole Confederacy thing in play too. The stadium would have been on Lee Highway. THAT Lee. Although its got that name because he's from here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Those people should be grateful the heroic white man did not finish what he started a few centuries ago so that they are still around to complain
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:51
|
|