Some consider the Nation’s Capital as “Fantasyland on the Potomac”. Other outsiders are “Fed Up” with the Federal City. It's better to consider D.C. as “the District of Calamity” (sic).
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
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.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Taking the Tinseltown Rebellion to Task for Hypocritical Hyperventilation Over Trump's Inauguration
On January 20th, 2017, Donald Trump takes the Executive Oath of Office to become the 45th President of the United States. Alas, some celebutards just cannot accept that he got the part. There have been star studded appeal to deny the winner of the 2016 Presidential Election the rightly designated votes in the Electoral College. Ironically, Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY) lost more Electoral College votes from unfaithful delegates than President-Elect Donald Trump, and he still won the Electoral College majority by 34 votes.
As the 114th Congress was called into session, Hollywood hypocrites released a histrionic plea to Congress to Obstruct the Trump Administration from doing anything that denies "our core values as diverse Ameicans"-- whatever that meant.
Was that intended to impede immigration reforms? Are such illegal aliens politically considered "diverse Americans without papers". Or was it a subtext to imply that Donald Trump will attack LGBTQQ? advances in civic society. Pretty ironic to aim attacks at a Republican Presidential candidate who unfurled a Rainbow colored flag during a general election campaign event.To mark the ascent of Donald Trump from being the real estate mogul host of the Celebrity Apprentice to the Oval Office, Variety published a protest photo op featuring CNN's communist commentator Van Jones, Michael Moore, Lena Dunham Chelsea Handler and Hamilton's Brandon Victor Dixon hiding behind an American flag. In the The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro gave this Tinseltown cohort have it.
No wonder Americans just get sick when they see covers like the one from Variety. Michael Moore posing with the flag – the same person who said that Trump supporters are “legal terrorists” but that actual terrorists are “Minutemen” – makes most Americans queasy. Treating Lena Dunham like a moral voice -- despite her ardent love for abortion and her overt bragging about masturbating next to her 11-year-old sister in bed – makes Americans nauseated. Acting as though Chelsea Handler – a woman who said she should be applauded for her two abortions – as a beacon of light is disgusting.
Since Donald Trump's election on November 8th, the progressive mind seems to be melting down. Some may find solace in a last gasp Women's March protest the day after the Inauguration. Other more anarchistic elements may seek to disrupt the peaceful transition of power which has happened in America for the last 220 years. But it seems that celebutards think that they can pompously parade their progressive philosophy and the hoi polloi will eat it up, even though it is liberal logorrhrea.
I second Ben Shapiro's call for Hollywood to keep it up as it builds off of Mark Twain's wisdom: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people thing that you are a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt."
H/T: The Daily Wire
Monday, January 16, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)