Mike Pompeo on Authoritarianism

 

Thomas Sowell on Tolerance

 

Thomas Sowell on Emotions and Facts

The Attention Hogg (sic) Laments that "Politics Is All Spectacle and I Hate It"

In the wake of the February 14th mass shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglass High School, senior David Hogg has become a prominent progressive tool for push for Gun Control. Hogg was a leading figure in the so called March for Our Lives in Washington DC. 

Hogg then parlayed his tragic celebrity into bullying media personalities like Laura Ingraham on social media who questioned his credentials and  chaffed at his simplistic solutions towards the Second Amendment.  The mainstream media then sought to turn it into a feeding frenzy to try to take down a popular conservative voice and further denigrate Fox News.

Of late, Hogg has been involved in organizing die ins at Publix grocery stores because of a supposed linkage between political contributions and Second Amendment advocates.

Hogg opted to take a year off from his education in order to pursue partisan politics.  Hence,  the Attention Hogg (sic) tweet which rails against politics as all spectacle was puzzling. But consider the timing of the tweet. 

Hogg sent this as the group of students was trotted out on stage during the Tony Awards virtue signaling.  Melody Herzfeld, the drama teacher from Parkland High School Drama Teacher who was given an education award and some of her students  performed a (relatively) non-political song from Rent. 

But Hogg was not front and center nor were enough of them wearing March for Our Lives paraphernalia. Hogg may have been miffed that he was not given "equal time" to rally against the NRA.  Moreover, this moment dedicated to the tragedy was upstaged by Robert De Niro  rallying the crowds' rage in the Two Minute Hate. 


Perhaps Hogg was still stinging about being proverbially spanked about the intersection of his rabble rousing. Hogg made an appearance at the Boston Gay Pride parade, in which he pushed for raising the minimum wage.  When questioned about the matter, Hogg revealed the product of his education.

In lieu of a gap year toiling in the trenches of partisan politics, Hogg ought to have opted to learn English.  Res ipsa loquitur. But considering the content of Hogg's apologia for #Fightfor15, he might want to brush up on logic, political science and learn to better disguise his white privilege. That sort of causality is not going to rally minority voters to the polls for the midterms.

Honestly, Hogg made a bad choice as he should have brushed off campaigning and schooling and immediately jumped into his career of choice: mass communications.   When you are broadcast and hold politically correct beliefs that prevail, you are not held accountable for saying something stupid.

The Strange Case of Tommy Robinson

Last week, British new media journalist Tommy Robinson (ne Stephen Lennon) was taken into custody and summarily sentenced to 13 months in prison while he was live streaming outside of the Leeds Crown Court.





There is considerable confusion about the matter.  Robinson has a history of being a soccer hooligan who became active in nationalist politics, with an animus against radical Islam. Robinson's arrest was while he covered a Muslim rape gang which groomed its child victims.

Because Tommy Robinson was weary of Islamic influence in the UK, it is easy to leap to the conclusion that a police state is trying to shut down a dissenting voice from elite internationalists.  It may well be that Robinson was taken in on suspended sentence for contempt of court regarding coverage of a gang rape case in 2017 that was escalated by being in a scuffle with police.  Robinson fears that his 13 month sentence will effectively be a death sentence due to Muslim gangs in prison.

Robinson's arrest seems kind of reminiscent of what happened to the LA videographer in the wake of the Benghazi attack in 2012.  Use trumped up charges on a small fry to politically placate.

What should be truly disturbing to all freedom lovers is the injunction that the judge, Geoffrey Mason QC, ordered an Orwellian media blackout, enjoining the British press from reporting on it until after the conclusion of the child grooming case.

[C] Judge Geoffrey Mason watching Tommy Robinson arrest, Leeds Crown Court

Several European Parliament Members have called Robinson a political prisoner and demanded his release. It is puzzling that the public can not be informed of someone who has been convicted of a crime. Are Star Chambers back in style in England again? In the past, the Star Chamber supposedly took on prominent people.  Is it now to enforce political correctness or PC dhimmitude?

Dennis Miller on Socialism

On Getting Your Irish Up

 As millions around the world celebrate St. Patrick’s Day by having some mugs of good cheer along with their corn beef and cabbage, some disgruntled soul in America’s heartland is unhappy. John M. Dooley from Davenport, Iowa took umbrage to a t-shirt for St. Patrick’s Day that showed an alcohol detection meter that marked the Irish as being at the far end of the scale.

 Dooley was offended at the stereotype that the Irish are hard drinkers. His op-ed in the Quad City Times links this slight to the litany of outrages against the Irish throughout history. Dooley inveighed:

My first thought at seeing the shirt was of my immediate family and my ancestors. How could someone - I presume ignorant of the bitter story of the Irish being exiled from their homes and homeland, hungry and diseased - once again use a wicked, stunningly incorrect stereotype to make money?

In closing, Dooley recalled the motto of Irish Brigade of the Civil War–“Gentle when stroked, fierce when provoked.” Even though he wants political correctness and ethnic sensitivity to reign, it still sounds like he is willing to get his Irish up.

The owner of the pub selling the t-shirts diplomatically rejoined: "Every year the Circle Tap offers a St. Patrick's celebration in good faith, good fun and with a light heart. We invite everyone to join us for a responsible good time." Ironically, this hullaballoo gave the supposedly offensive t-shirt more publicity. Many Quad City Times readers who responded indicated that they were of Irish ancestry and thought that Dooley should lighten up. 

 h/t: Quad City Times h/t: American Thinker

Ben Shapiro on Political Correctness

Peoplekind, eh?

During a townhall meeting, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau interrupted a constituent pleading for religious liberty to serve underprivileged Canadians to ensure that politically correct language was used. 





Helping mankind was considered to be a micro-aggression, so Prime Minister Trudeau offered that "Peoplekind" was preferred politically correct speak. Really? Not even humankind?  Does that include canines, as dogs are people too (sic).  How about corporations?  Well, our neighbors in the Great White North have determined that the free speech in the Charter of Rights can overridden, especially for corporations, where the need can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Then again, Canadians have a reputation for priggishly protecting minority rights, as was humorously parodied in Michael Moore's  romp Canadian Bacon (1995).




Post Scriptus 02/07/2018 -  Several days after the "Peoplekind" comment went viral on social media, The UK Daily Mail reports Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was just kidding about the comment.  Sure, he did...check the videotape--NOT! It seems that he'll use the excuse of allegedly making a dumb joke than being considered dumb during a tour in the United States.

The problem with Trudeau's apologia is that his humor relies on a  is a reductio ad absurdum.  If we are to respect minority rights, should an over-exaggeration be a laughing matter? 

On Ivy League Ideological Intolerance

Thomas Sowell on College Leaders

Sebastian Gorka on Donald Trump

Rush Limbaugh on the NFL Taking the Knee for the National Anthem

Ben Shapiro on Free Speech

GAB Faces Big Fat Dilemma Balancing Free Speech and Censorship

Of late, there has been a growing realization that our internet overlords are controlling the public square.  In 2016, Facebook faced some consternation when the social media giant's curation of news in the sidebar consistently slighted conservative news stories.  Twitter took to banning some who defied the politically correct weltenanschauung that our cyber elites favor in their posts.  Milo Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for posting  alt-right opinions while similar sort of liberal content continued unabated.  It is not uncommon for conservative sites to experience shadow-blocking, which covertly thwarts wider dissemination of posts through censoring algorithms. Platforms can summarily block access based on anonymous, spurious complaints, and due to the Star Chamber handling of such charges, it is almost impossible to protest much less redress any alleged issues.

To counter efforts of cyber-censorship, Andrew Torba et ali. created GAB during the summer of 2016.  As a social media platform, GAB exhorted users to #SpeakFreely and vowed not to censor posts unless it advocated violence or child pornography which was against laws.

As a start up, GAB not only faced typical challenges of funding and creating a market, but faced difficulties from a politically correct driven cyber community. GAB encountered tremendous difficulties from Apple to have a i-phone mobile app approved because of the Speak Freely philosophy.  Even after GAB successfully developed and started distributing an Android mobile app, there are concerns that the GAB appl will be removed from the Play Store because users might post objectionable contention on GAB's platform.

Alas, it is not only technology giants who are exerting their power as internet overlords.  The latest controversy involves a fat meme posted from a neo nazi (who has been banned from other sites and platforms).  Torba politely responded to the post that it was a violation of the Terms of Service and asked that it be taken down.  This uncharacteristic action roiled users who wrapped themselves around the mantra of #SpeakFreely.



Torba later clarified that Asia Registry, demanded that the post be banned or else GAB's registry would be revoked. The GAB leadership is currently scrambling to address the issue.

It is ironic that a fat joke would be used as the linchpin to destroy GAB, however that is the cause celebre which is being exploited by small time internet player Asia Registry, but they have the power.  Yet is mirrors the other tech giants efforts to obstruct alternatives to their virtual monopolies by using politically correct Trojan Horses.

In an age in which alleged micro-agressions, such as a Hobby Lobby customer is triggered by the "racist" notion of using cotton flowers in a vase, that the left countenances bilious blurtations when it tracks the progressive agenda of the moment. Such in loco parentis progressive sensibilities prompted a Zerohedge pundit to wonder if Internet behemoths are acting as colonial powers.


UPDATE: September 19, 2017

GAB was successful in finding other registrar for the domain which would not play games with them.

Sally Kohn on Political Correctness

Justifying Georgemas

British Great War Recruiting Poster 

According to the Gregorian calendar, April 23rd is the Feast of St. George (or Georgemas).  The Orthodox also admire the attributes of St. George but follow the Julian calendar which marks the feast on May 6th.  St. George born in Syria Palestrinia in the late Third Century who served as an officer in the Roman army that guarded the Emporer Diocletian, but who was martyred for not renouncing his Christian faith.  The emperor tried to bribe George to renounce his faith and tortured him, but to no avail. Before he was decapitated, St. George gave all of his wealth to the poor.

St. George is one of the most venerated saints in the Catholic Church, among Anglicans, Orthodox, East Syrian churches. Even Muslims revere this honorable military man. In the Twelfth Century a legend was attached to St. George about slaying a dragon.  The standard Orthodox icon of St. George depicts him slaying a dragon with a woman in the background.

The dragon is generally understood as being both Satan and the monster from his own life (Diocletian). The woman in the background is Alexandra, the wife of Emperor Diocletian. Crusaders credit an appearance of St. George. This was probably legend which traveled back with the Crusaders from the Holy Land and was embellished in courtly Romance retellings.


Legend has it that a plague bearing dragon came down from the mountains and terrorized the countryside.  The dragon could not be appeased with ransom of livestock.  This  dragon would not stop his rampage unless the King tied a young maiden to an oak tree in the center of the village.

The King's nobles used a pigeon to decide what to do.  If the bird flew to the east then, they must take the King's own daughter Sabra and tie her to a tree, as the dragon demanded.  The pigeon flew off to the east.

But as fate would have it, the pigeon managed  to attract the attention of a knight called  George and guided him back to the princess. Just as the dragon was about to devour the princess, the good knight clad in armor fortified himself with a sign of the cross and then brought the fight to the dragon.  George cunningly slowed down the dragon by driving a ball of pitch down his throat, and then speared the dragon with a grievous wound with his lance.  

The Wedding of St. George and Princess Sabra by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1857)

According to Eastern versions, the knight rode back to the city along with the princess and the dragon in tow.  As George approached the city, he promised to slay the dragon if the town would become baptized Christians.  Fifteen thousand men took to the baptismal waters and George slayed the dragon with his trusty sword Ascalon (recalling the city Ashkelon in Israel).  The king was so grateful that he bestowed nobility (some say Sainthood) to George and gave his daughter Sabra's hand in marriage and promised to build a church were the dragon was slain.

St. George is the patron saint of England yet it is not a public holiday in England. The reasons why celebration of Georgemas is muted are cultural, historical and now tinged with political correctness.



St. George was neither English nor roundly associated with England, even though King Edward III formed the Order of the Garder under the patronage of St. George in 1348.  The Reformation played a part as Protestants did not care much for saints' days. In addition, celebration of St. George's day has been in decline since the Act of Union between England in Scotland completed in 1707.  In today's world,  the Daily Telegraph reports that many English people are concerned that national symbols like St. George can be considered racists,


Aside from the fact that many pubs in England are named after George and the dragon, it makes one wonder why this legend matters. Modern man is quick to dismiss myths (unless it is anthropogenic global warming), but this is short sighted. Myths convey essential truths although the romantic story elements may not be exact.  For instance, the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree may have been apocryphal but it does "I can not tell a lie" does illustrate some of the virtues of Washington's transcription of "The Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior", which molded the first President's life and were put into practice at the founding of the American Republic.

The reason that St. George matters so much to the English is that the legend reinforces characteristics which the English admire and seek to emulate.  St. George is a knight who exemplified chivalry. St. George and the dragon also champions the little guy as well as the triumph of good over evil.  The versions which depict him making the sign of the cross depict deep dedication to principles (if we dare not declare faith).  These romanticized virtues along with the more verifiable versions of his hagiography make St. George a man worthy (bank holiday or not) for Englishmen to emulate.

[This piece originally ran on DC-LausDeo.US]

Milo Yiannopoulos on Policing Humor

Perhaps, but such a hermaneutic is not true for utterances which CPAC organizers  exclaimed: "You must be joking."

Marquette University Continues to Sacrifice Free Speech on the Altar of Political Correctness

In the fall of 2014, a Marquette University Undergraduate student had an encounter with his lecturer after a  “Theory of Ethics” class as the Graduate Teaching Assistant instructor Cheryl Abbate applied a philosophy text to contemporary political controversies.  After class, the undergraduate questioned how John Rawl’s Theory of Justice was blithely applied to gay rights.

The Undergraduate student argued against same-sex marriage and gay adoption. After engaging in some academic exchanges with the undergraduate who endorsed traditional family values, Abbate played the trump card of political correct “Offensiveness”.  The philosophy graduate student interrogated the  undergraduate as to whether he knew if there were any gay students in the class.  Abbate declared that no homophobic or racist comments would be tolerated and encouraged him to drop the class.

During the colloquy, the undergraduate student recorded the exchange with his cell phone.  When questioned by Abbate if the conversation was being recorded, the student denied that it was. Abbate demanded to see the phone, and when it was surrendered, indeed the conversation was being recorded.

Marquette Asst. Prof. John McAdams

Although the Undergraduate student did succumb to the pressure to exit that ethics class, he did try to work through the system to register his displeasure. The Arts and Science Dean shuffled the complaint to the Philosophy Chair who subsequently ignored the issue. Afterwards, the shunted student turned to Marquette Political Science Assistant Professor John McAdams, who also publishes “Marquette Warrior”, a new media news and analysis site that is often critical of the Marquette University Administration.

McAdams coverage of the free speech and academic freedom scandal spread like wildfire, reaching the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and  Fox News.  This publicity generated hate mail towards Abbate and exposed Marquette University’s progressive embrace of political correctness. Subsequently, the Marquette University Dean of the Arts and Sciences Richard C. Holtz suspended the tenured McAdams (with pay) and barred the Professor who taught at the institution for 33 years from visiting the downtown Milwaukee campus.

This controversy came to a head a fortnight ago, when Marquette University moved to suspend McAdams for a semester without pay but the Arts and Science Faulty stipulated as a condition for readmittance that McAdams profess his “guilt” for the incident and pledge that he would adhere to Marquette’s Guiding Values, whatever those are. 

Banner for the inaugural of Marquette University President  Michael Lovell

Essentially, this move puts McAdams on the tenure track for termination.

Seen from the progressive establishment’s perspective, McAdams is an outlier academic as he is a conservative Poly-Sci professor.  Moreover, McAdams is a gadfly, a tenured voice of discord with the progressive descent of Marquette Hall into political correctness.

 In addition, McAdams’ publishes “Marquette Warrior” which in itself is a slap in the face to Marquette’s administration.  In the early 1990s, then Marquette President Fr. Robert Wilde, S.J., banished the beloved Marquette Warrior citing political correct principles.  Despite having a ballot for another mascot which included “the Jellyfish”, “The Yacks” and “The Jumpin’ Jesuits”, it seemed that the “Golden Eagle” was predestined to win.  A quarter century later, Marquette Alums still defiantly cheer “Let’s Go Warriors” at Men’s basketball games.

Academia is up in arms over McAdams for self serving but parochial professional reasons.  Pieces defending Abbate insist that she was being smeared, that she was exposed to hate speech through publicity, that did not have proper time to respond and that McAdams used questionable journalism in reporting the incident.  The thing is if one reads McAdams piece, he exposes liberal fascism with the tactics of other Marquette professors and names names.  So the best way to shut him up is to claim Harassment and demand that he do political re-education via the Guiding Values mau-mau.

Why is this political inquisition on a college campus important?

Firstly, it again exposes liberal academic intolerance in the classroom. The legally taped recording memorialized how free speech was limited on behalf of not offending anyone (except those who disagree with political correct ideology).  Concomitantly, the reinstatement demand by the Marquette faculty essentially abates free speech.

Secondly, the incident impeaches Marquette University’s credibility as a Catholic university.  To have Teaching Assistants prohibiting even discussing views which align with the Magisterium (as reaffirmed by Pope Francis’ recent encyclical "Amoris Laetitia”) as it is homophobic or racist speech.  The Marquette Guiding Values trumpet Jesuit and  Catholic virtues but those seem to be a veneer.

Thirdly, it calls into question the value of tenure.  McAdams has been associated with Marquette for 34 ½ years and has tenure.  In order for his faculty rights to be re-instated, the Marquette Administration insists that he bow down to his colleagues, publically announce his guilt and swear fealty to Guiding Values which are amorphous and are being capriciously followed (see Catholic Magisterium).

Fourthly, the Marquette Warrior blog shows the value of the New Media and Internet 2.0.  After getting the run around from the Administration, a citizen journalist (in the person of a tenured faculty member) spread the news and the abuse was exposed.  Some argue that McAdams did not follow journalistic practice.  But he had a primary source, legally taped proof and wrote an opinion analysis, which certainly fell within his Political Science bailiwick.  It shows how administrators, be they academic or corporate, can infringe on personal liberty and free speech via monitoring social media.

Fifthly, it shows liberal hypocrisy.  Marquette’s Administration is all in a twitter about their former Teaching Assistant being harassed (but not by McAdams) and receiving hate mail.  However, as the matter was being adjudicated, they have no concern that the whistle-blower was also receiving hateful blowback.

It seems as if Marquette’s Administration is trying to settle old grudges through this incident.  McAdams clearly is not beloved by the Arts and Science Faculty as he is a conservative and one who will call out his colleagues.  McAdams embarrassed the Marquette Administration by getting national attention.  By suspending McAdams and demanding terms which violate his tenure and contractually guaranteed Freedom of Speech, Marquette sets McAdams up to be terminated and fight in court.  Law-fare is a long and expensive process in which litigants can claim privilege and not discuss the case. The seventy year old McAdams might drop the costly case or it will become moot in the long process of adjudication.

At the heart of the matter, we must discern what are Marquette’s values in this academic inquisition. Liberal education in the classical sense, a study of the higher things which draws forth and hones inquisitiveness and debate that empowers students to deal with the complexities of life?  Or is it expensive inculcation of au currant politically correct values and an appreciation of liberal fascism?

Marquette proclaims itself a Catholic academic institution which is committed to Catholic social teaching and  gives “our support of Catholic beliefs and values”.  While it has long had progressive theologian Dan McGuire (who incidentally supports McAdams academic freedom) it has also produced Scott Hahn, a convert Catholic who has revolutionized Covenant theology.  Is barring even the defense of the Magisterium in the form of supporting traditional marriage in the classroom impermissible?  Really?

Marquette’s Guiding Values manifesto exhorts reaching beyond traditional academic boundaries and embracing new methods.  Do these values include using the new media to expose academic intimidation in the classroom, documenting political correctness and sharing the truth with the world?

The Guiding Values close with an admonition that echoes St. Ignatius of Loyola to “set the world on fire.”  I fear that the McAdams affair sets Marquette’s supposed “Guiding Values” on fire. But a blaze of truth can purify.

Tell that to Joan of Arc. The Maid of Orleans was burned at the stake in 1431 in Rouen by the English powers that be because she espoused God's truths.  When the ecclesiastic establishment could not trip Joan of Arc up during her testimony, they charged her with scandal about cross-dressing.  Joan's captures gave her a chance to recant but when she again followed God's will, she was burned at the stake for repeated heresy.  This was brilliantly portrayed in the mesmerizing Carl Theodore Dreyer film "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (1928). Pope Benedict XV canonized St. Joan of Arc in 1920.

The Joan of Arc chapel was transferred brick by brick from Orleans, France to Long Island in 1927.  The Joan of Arc Chapel was brought to Milwaukee in 1964 and is the centerpiece of the campus. What an ironic parallel for Marquette to honor the virtues of St. Joan of Arc but acts so inquisitorially towards a tenured academician following truth.

Bronze of (Pere) Jacques Marquette (2004) by Ronald Knepper in front of
St. Joan of Arc Chapel, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Post Scriptus:  Marquette University President Michael Lovell assessed the McAdams mess as making a "personal attack" on a student.  The salient point was what capacity was then Marquette Teaching Assistant Cheryl Abbate acting when she barred free speech in the classroom concerning Same-Sex Marriage.  Res ipsa loquitur. Abbate was acting as an instructor as she dictated acceptable rhetoric and viewpoints within her classroom.  Moreover Abbate pressured the undergraduate philosophy student to drop the class. 

UPDATE 01/18/2017  Professor McAdams received a letter from Marquette legal counsel that he will remain on indefinite suspension until he admits his guilt and formally apologizes.  Professor McAdams lawyer considers this letter the functional equivalent of a pink slip.  McAdams is on route to a jury trial in June and he is not inclined to take a large settlement to shut up and make the problem go away. 

UPDATE 01/24/2018 The Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to bypass the Court of Appeals and immediately hear Professor John McAdams’ case against Marquette University.  McAdams sued Marquette after the university fired him for blogging about a graduate student instructor who mistreated her undergraduate pupil.  The court will likely hear oral argument in in the spring and and issue a ruling by July, 2018.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court took the case because
 there is no binding precedent on the question of how far academic freedom extends.  

UPDATE 07/06/2018  The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-2 that Marquette University violated Professor McAdams free speech rights and that he ought to be immediately reinstated.  The case has been remanded to lower courts to determine damages which Professor McAdams incurred.  Justice Daniel Kelly noted that the suspension violated McAdams contractually protected freedom of speech and that the extramural blog comments had no bearings on his fitness to remain a professor. 

A Favorable First Amendment Slant Should Save the Redskin's Trademark

For several years, there has been a politically correct effort to force the Washington Redskins to change their name.  In fact, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was convinced with withdraw the NFL franchise's trademark protection in 1999 and 2014, citing that "the term redskin" as derogatory and offensive even though the USPTO had approved the mark over 80 years before. Washington Redskin's owner Daniel Synder appealed claiming that case law and the weight of the evidence had been ignored.  A federal district court agreed with the Patent Office's withdrawal of the trademark in July 2015. 

However, a Federal Appeals court handed down a ruling which may well be a game changer.  The Portland Oregon dance rock band "The Slants" won a Federal Appeals Court case which began in 2011 over their provocative moniker.  The Slants are composed of Asian Pacific Island band members and pride themselves as taking on racism presumably by embracing a name which many consider to be ethnic slander. 

The Slants

In a December 22, 2015 decision, the Federal Appeals Court ruled:

“Many of the marks rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities. But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech...

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks."

That ruling ended The Slant's legal Misery, but also serves as a strong indication that the Redskin's ruling will not stand. The Redskins were stripped of trademark protection because of "hurtful speech".  In addition, the Redskin's case is even stronger as the USPTO had already approved the trademark years before and then sought to yank it away.  However, because the Redskin's appeal is in another circuit, the Slant's ruling is not automatically set a precedent.  And the US Supreme Court could also overturn the Slant's First Amendment trademark protection.

But until then..

UPDATE: 01/18/2017:  The Slants get their day at the highest court in the land as Lee v. Tam reaches the Supreme Court. The justices will decide whether the government can penalize free speech which it finds offensive or if the government granting a trademark protection allows it to disassociate from ideas which the public might find offensive 

UPDATE: 06/19/2017:  In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that the government can not refuse to register trademarks that are considered offensive.  The Supreme Court's ruled that the disparagement part of the trademark law, which had been a provision in effect since 1946, is unconstitutional.

Most believe that the Supreme Court's holding will hail favorably for the Washington Redskin's trademark dispute.