House Bill Would Revoke Washington NFL Team's Trademarks

[AntiParty]

Didn't seem to bother these Navajo's!

Most actual "Indians" aren't bothered.

This is a politically based topic. They OWN their "red" skin. Politics takes it into a different extreme.

Sounds like something you and "Scat" should discuss!

And you are off topic once again..Thanks for playing.

If you say so, it seems SCAT might have been right about you!

Once again, try to stay on topic instead of trolling. We have politics to discuss here.

 

[Vigilante]

Didn't seem to bother these Navajo's!

Most actual "Indians" aren't bothered.

This is a politically based topic. They OWN their "red" skin. Politics takes it into a different extreme.

Sounds like something you and "Scat" should discuss!

And you are off topic once again..Thanks for playing.

If you say so, it seems SCAT might have been right about you!

Once again, try to stay on topic instead of trolling. We have politics to discuss here.

You still should discuss it wit SCAT, after your last encounter with him, you 2 almost seem evenly matched ....but you did use the same excuse on him, that you are using with me.

 

[AntiParty]

Most actual "Indians" aren't bothered.

This is a politically based topic. They OWN their "red" skin. Politics takes it into a different extreme.

Sounds like something you and "Scat" should discuss!

And you are off topic once again..Thanks for playing.

If you say so, it seems SCAT might have been right about you!

Once again, try to stay on topic instead of trolling. We have politics to discuss here.

You still should discuss it wit SCAT, after your last encounter with him, you 2 almost seem evenly matched ....but you did use the same excuse on him, that you are using with me.

More on the TOPIC that the child derailed.....

The NFL is like the Government's of the past. The NFL is trying to control everything.. They might do better as a Corporation if they stopped this "CONTROL" tactic.

 

[bripat9643]

Wonder what they would do to this?

They would probably wonder why you are off topic and farming to be the top poster of a forum that doesn't screen people that are off topic.

Seems basic to me.

Off topic.... they regulate a word that only recently has a negative attached to it, but not nigga which has for decades a negative connotation. What ever happened to free speech? You don't like a word, don't use it!

You should know the difference between revoking a (™) and controlling a word nationally........

Or are you stating that the American people can't say "Indians" anymore?

Either way, it's still a violation of the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The OP and idiot democrats who,always ponders to votes don't know how the NFL works, the teams share evenly merchandise revenue , it don't hurt the Redskins much if any at all.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Bill Gates, the richest man in the US is really stealing from the poor, isn't he? At least according to the Moon Bats.

He pays millions and millions in taxes each year, employs tens of thousands of people, gives away millions to charity and produces products that most Americans use on a daily basis.

Only an envious and greedy Moon Bat would have a problem with that.

The they wonder why we call them Moon Bats.

Lol bill Gates just fired 20,000 programmers to make more money on Windows 8.1 and 10.

But he has billions of dollars!

Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) introduced legislation Tuesday that would revoke trademarks for the Washington NFL team for as long as the franchise keeps its controversial name.

"It is unbelievable to me that, in the 21st century, a prominent NFL franchise is calling itself by a racial slur," Honda said in a statement. "Team names should not be offensive to anyone. Allowing trademark protection of this word is akin to the government approving its use. Removing that trademark will send a clear message that this name is not acceptable."

The bill would officially deem the word "redskins" a disparaging term, making it ineligible for trademark under the Lanham Act. The legislation would retroactively revoke the team's existing trademarks and block new ones using the term. Honda co-sponsored similar legislation in 2013.

More: House Bill Would Revoke Washington NFL Team s Trademarks

Sounds good. However, Republicans will probably vote against the bill.

You'd think native Americans would be proud to have their imagine on things within our country. As a half breed ive myself I am!

Yea name a NFL team the Fighting Pollocks or Krauts like I care

 

[hortysir]

You'd think native Americans would be proud to have their imagine on things within our country. As a half breed native myself I am!

I recall when "half breed" was a slur.
But I guess it's different when you say it

 

[Roadrunner]

Wonder what they would do to this?

Gee, black rage starts early.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This reminds me I have a unique last name, only a few of us in the states and world, I was kind of proud a few years when I found out a Texas semi pro football team calls them that for some reason

 

[Roadrunner]

Wonder what they would do to this?

They would probably wonder why you are off topic and farming to be the top poster of a forum that doesn't screen people that are off topic.

Seems basic to me.

Off topic.... they regulate a word that only recently has a negative attached to it, but not nigga which has for decades a negative connotation. What ever happened to free speech? You don't like a word, don't use it!

You should know the difference between revoking a (™) and controlling a word nationally........

Or are you stating that the American people can't say "Indians" anymore?

Isn't INDIANS a no no? Indigenous people is the proper term used by the asshole PC people.

They are not INDIGENOUS.

The are Earlier Arrivers.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) introduced legislation Tuesday that would revoke trademarks for the Washington NFL team for as long as the franchise keeps its controversial name.

"It is unbelievable to me that, in the 21st century, a prominent NFL franchise is calling itself by a racial slur," Honda said in a statement. "Team names should not be offensive to anyone. Allowing trademark protection of this word is akin to the government approving its use. Removing that trademark will send a clear message that this name is not acceptable."

The bill would officially deem the word "redskins" a disparaging term, making it ineligible for trademark under the Lanham Act. The legislation would retroactively revoke the team's existing trademarks and block new ones using the term. Honda co-sponsored similar legislation in 2013.

More: House Bill Would Revoke Washington NFL Team s Trademarks

Sounds good. However, Republicans will probably vote against the bill.

I'd vote against it. It has no place in politics.

 

[SwimExpert]

Sorry, it's a bill of attainder because it is declaring one corporation guilty

Where does it say that?

of some unnamed offence.

Then it's not a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder would have to name an offense.

 

[SwimExpert]

In related news, nobody is complaining about the racist name of the team from Minnesota.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You might want to look up the definition of a "Bill of Attainder", it's unconstitutional and will never see a vote.

Actually, you're looking for the phrase "ex post facto." A bill of attainder is a legislative action declaring a person guilty of a crime. For example, a bill which read "OKTexas is hereby guilty of murder" would be a bill of attainder. The above bill is not a bill of attainder, it is a bill dealing with trademarks. Congress has the power to legislate trademark issues. However, this particular bill would (allegedly, since I haven't actually read the link yet) violate the ex post facto clause. Congress does not have the power to pass retroactive laws.

Entirely correct. Even if they have the power to legislate against "racist" trademark names (and I don't believe they do) any bill they pass would have to grandfather is existing names.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

In related news, nobody is complaining about the racist name of the team from Minnesota.

Or the Buccaneers which is CLEARLY a derisive term used to insult Pirate Americans.

 

[SwimExpert]

You might want to look up the definition of a "Bill of Attainder", it's unconstitutional and will never see a vote.

Actually, you're looking for the phrase "ex post facto." A bill of attainder is a legislative action declaring a person guilty of a crime. For example, a bill which read "OKTexas is hereby guilty of murder" would be a bill of attainder. The above bill is not a bill of attainder, it is a bill dealing with trademarks. Congress has the power to legislate trademark issues. However, this particular bill would (allegedly, since I haven't actually read the link yet) violate the ex post facto clause. Congress does not have the power to pass retroactive laws.

Entirely correct. Even if they have the power to legislate against "racist" trademark names (and I don't believe they do) any bill they pass would have to grandfather is existing names.

I think they could get around the grandfathering. All you have to probably do is to come up with a bill that assigns an expiration date six months from now for the current trademark, and simply prohibit new ones. But this bill really shows how much of a damned fool Honda is. Retroactive revocation? What the hell is he trying to pull? There's no excuse for not knowing how flagrantly unconstitutional that would be. Not to mention how insanely pointless it would be. What does he hope to accomplish with that retroactive crap? Build a time machine and undo all the money they've made?

Aside from that, there are still other problems with this bill. Trademarks are intellectual property, so by summarily revoking an extant trademark I think the bill would likely run afoul of due process and eminent domain protections.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You might want to look up the definition of a "Bill of Attainder", it's unconstitutional and will never see a vote.

Actually, you're looking for the phrase "ex post facto." A bill of attainder is a legislative action declaring a person guilty of a crime. For example, a bill which read "OKTexas is hereby guilty of murder" would be a bill of attainder. The above bill is not a bill of attainder, it is a bill dealing with trademarks. Congress has the power to legislate trademark issues. However, this particular bill would (allegedly, since I haven't actually read the link yet) violate the ex post facto clause. Congress does not have the power to pass retroactive laws.

Entirely correct. Even if they have the power to legislate against "racist" trademark names (and I don't believe they do) any bill they pass would have to grandfather is existing names.

I think they could get around the grandfathering. All you have to probably do is to come up with a bill that assigns an expiration date six months from now for the current trademark, and simply prohibit new ones. But this bill really shows how much of a damned fool Honda is. Retroactive revocation? What the hell is he trying to pull? There's no excuse for not knowing how flagrantly unconstitutional that would be. Not to mention how insanely pointless it would be. What does he hope to accomplish with that retroactive crap? Build a time machine and undo all the money they've made?

Aside from that, there are still other problems with this bill. Trademarks are intellectual property, so by summarily revoking an extant trademark I think the bill would likely run afoul of due process and eminent domain protections.

I think it would run right into a first amendment challenge, and lose. Having the right to say what we want, even if offensive to some runs to the very heart of the COTUS. If a person can't also name their property whatever they want, then free speech doesn't really exist.

That's my problem with so many people today. they stupidly believe that it is okay to squash the rights of those they disagree with. Freedom of speech means the right to offend. Like it or not.

The question of whether or not the name even IS offensive is wholly irrelevant to the legality of forcing them to change their name.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think it would run right into a first amendment challenge, and lose. Having the right to say what we want, even if offensive to some runs to the very heart of the COTUS. If a person can't also name their property whatever they want, then free speech doesn't really exist.

Hmm, I don't know. I'm not sure 1st amendment protections would apply unless we were talking about a bill that actually forbade the use of the name, but that doesn't sound like what we have here. Simply not providing trademark protections does not create a 1st amendment issue. There are many restrictions on trademarks. Then again, trademark laws are a function of commerce clause power, so maybe morality restrictions could run into 1st amendment problems after all.

I don't want to see something so egregious become law, but I'd be fascinated to see the opinions in the resulting court battle.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I think it would run right into a first amendment challenge, and lose. Having the right to say what we want, even if offensive to some runs to the very heart of the COTUS. If a person can't also name their property whatever they want, then free speech doesn't really exist.

Hmm, I don't know. I'm not sure 1st amendment protections would apply unless we were talking about a bill that actually forbade the use of the name, but that doesn't sound like what we have here. Simply not providing trademark protections does not create a 1st amendment issue. There are many restrictions on trademarks. Then again, trademark laws are a function of commerce clause power, so maybe morality restrictions could run into 1st amendment problems after all.

I don't want to see something so egregious become law, but I'd be fascinated to see the opinions in the resulting court battle.

It very well may be a 14th Amendment violation as well. Those who use offensive terms are to be afforded the same protections as the rest of us.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Congress needs to be reminded that they aren't legally able to write laws that impede free speech? That's sad.

Congress needs to be reminded that they have more important things to work on than the name of fucking football team....

You mean like voting 56 times to repeal Obamacare?

that is something that at least has some effect on just about everyone in this country.....the name of a fucking football team does not....