Redskins trademark

[Xan]

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/judge-ord ... --nfl.html

The judge here cited the recent Supreme Court case of the SCV against Texas, about the license plates with the Confederate flag.  It didn't take long for the deleterious effects which the dissenting justices warned about to come to pass.  Now, thanks to that, all trademarks will be subject to the government's "offensiveness" filter.  Who knows what's next.

[Xan]

It's tightening the noose of free speech.  The more ways that private speech is determined to be a function of the government (first license plates, then trademarks, who knows what's next), the more free speech disappears.

For example, since we're on a .com domain, it could be said that our conversation here carries an implicit stamp of approval by the US government, and therefore, all opinions expressed on this site must be approved.

For example, I write an op-ed to my local newspaper.  That newspaper is incorporated via the government, so anything printed in it carries an implicit stamp of approval, therefore all opinions expressed there must be approved.

Those aren't violations of free speech, you see; that's just not forcing an arm of the government to endorse something it doesn't want to endorse.  Very soon "free speech" will only apply when two people are having a private conversation, and maybe not even then.

Here's the Supreme Court ruling on the license plates:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 4_758b.pdf
I urge everyone to read the dissents, which start on page 23 of the PDF.

[Xan]

One humorous excerpt:

Here is a test. Suppose you sat by the side of a Texas highway and studied the license plates on the vehicles passing by. You would see, in addition to the standard Texas plates, an impressive array of specialty plates. (There are now more than 350 varieties.) You would likely observe plates that honor numerous colleges and universities. You might see plates bearing the name of a high school, a fraternity or sorority, the Masons, the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of the American Revolution, a realty company, a favorite soft drink, a favorite burger restaurant, and a favorite NASCAR driver.

As you sat there watching these plates speed by, would you really think that the sentiments reflected in these specialty plates are the views of the State of Texas and not those of the owners of the cars? If a car with a plate that says “Rather Be Golfing” passed by at 8:30 am on a Monday morning, would you think: “This is the official policy of the State—better to golf than to work?” If you did your viewing at the start of the college football season and you saw Texas plates with the names of the University of Texas’s out-of-state competitors in upcoming games—Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, the University of Oklahoma, Kansas State, Iowa State—would you assume that the State of Texas was officially (and perhaps treasonously) rooting for the Longhorns’ opponents? And when a car zipped by with a plate that reads “NASCAR – 24 Jeff Gordon,” would you think that Gordon (born in California, raised in Indiana, resides in North Carolina) is the official favorite of the State government? The Court says that all of these messages are government speech.

[moda0306]

Personally I find specialty plates to be a silly, unnecessary role of government.  In MN, we can't put "indecent" statements on our plates, though.  I guess the libertarian in me says, "If you're going to allow people to make up their license plate "number," then accept it all... no subjective preferences or censorship."  However, this isn't really the stuff I'm scared about, even with the slipperiness of the slope.

I'm far more concerned with how the government is silencing and/or threatening elements of the media as it pertains to its "war" on "terror," as that isn't just a slippery slope, but a cliff that we are careening down.  That's where the Constitution is really being shit upon, and often in secrecy, no-less.  But of course, that doesn't play as well with the lemmings in the U.S. as Confederate flag license plates and sports team trademarks (not to mention private "violations" of free speech like the Don Sterling and Paula Deen incidents).

If it doesn't play into folks' tribal identity, good luck trying to get them pissed off about it. 

[WildAboutHarry]

[quote='TennPaGa']I guess I just don't see the Redskins ruling as impacting free speech, and I'm not finding your slippery slope argument very persuasive. [/quote]

I find the Boston Celtics mascot very offensive to my Celtic heritage.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

[MachineGhost]

Give them bread and circuses.

[Mountaineer]

Or let them eat cake.  That turned out well - for some. 

... M