Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
September 19, 2018, 04:38:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Congress calls for Redskins change  (Read 25228 times)
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #125 on: September 30, 2014, 04:23:43 PM »

LOL @ the punk bitches in congress.... they WILL legislate on WASH football, but they DONT bother to vote on ISIS bombings in syria lol.
Report to moderator   Logged

MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17012


Getbig!


« Reply #126 on: October 01, 2014, 05:22:32 AM »

FCC will consider punishing broadcasters for saying 'Redskins'
BY SI WIRE
Posted: Tue Sep. 30, 2014

The Federal Communications Commission will consider punishing broadcasters for using the Washington Redskins' nickname on air, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said during a conference call with reporters, according to Reuters.

Legal activist John Banzhaf III, a law professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., petitioned the FCC to revoke a Washington radio station's broadcast license due to its repeated use of the nickname.

Wheeler said his organization will "be looking into that petition."

"There are a lot of names and descriptions that were used over time that are inappropriate today," Wheeler added, according to Reuters. "And I think the name that is attributed to the Washington football club is one of those."

• Native American chief urges boycott of FedEx over 'Redskins' name​

In June, the franchise had its trademark revoked on the grounds that it was "disparaging to Native Americans."

An SI poll earlier this month found that only 25 percent of fans thought the name should be changed.

CBS broadcaster Phil Simms told SI.com earlier this month he would try not to use the name while broadcasting Washington's game against the Giants in Week 4.

• South Park takes on the Washington Redskins' nickname controversy​

A senator from Washington state also announced she would introduce legislation to strip the NFL of its tax-exempt status as a response to the league's support of the nickname.

Washington owner Dan Snyder infamously told USA Today in 2013, "We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER — you can use caps."

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/09/30/washington-redskins-name-change-fcc-punishment


Simms called them the Redskins, during the Bucs-Falcons debacle, as they were previewing the matchup for the following week.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #127 on: October 13, 2014, 12:37:55 PM »

Nice.   Smiley


AWESOME PICTURE: Washington Redskins Owner Watches Football Game with President of the Navajo Nation
October 13, 2014
By Greg Campbell



Far more than the supposed infraction itself, the thing that has galled the political correctness police the most is how Washington Redskins owner, Dan Snyder, has refused to back-down from the political correctness bullying.
 
In fact, nothing enrages a bully like a potential victim scoffing and saying, “You don’t scare me.”
 
 
More than any supposed offense aimed at American Indians, the real crime committed, so far the humorless left is concerned, is that Snyder has refused to bow-down and kiss the ring of guilty white liberalism.
 
That’s why this picture is so awesome; while Snyder has been called every name in the book and countless media hacks have come to refuse to refer to the Redskins as their rightful name, Snyder has taken the bullying in stride and on Sunday, as he watched his team play football, he enjoyed the company of Ben Shelly, the president of the Navajo Nation.
 
Hopefully, liberals will find another cause calling their name and move on to another crusade to make them feel important.



http://www.tpnn.com/2014/10/13/awesome-picture-washington-redskins-owner-watches-football-game-with-president-of-the-navajo-nation/
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #128 on: October 31, 2014, 05:00:35 PM »

Protest of Redskins name planned before game at Vikings on Sunday
BY SI WIRE
Posted: Fri Oct. 31, 2014

Organizers of a protest of the Redskins name before their road game against the Minnesota Vikings on Sunday expect "thousands" of people to participate, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

The peaceful protest is being put on by the National Coalition Against Racism in Sports and Media, in cooperation with the University of Minnesota and Minneapolis police. The plan calls for protestors to gather at Northrop Plaza on the campus of the University of Minnesota before marching to TCF Bank Stadium, where the game is being played, for a rally.

Expected speakers at the rally include include Indian reservation leaders, Minneapolis mayor Betsy Hodges, comedian and social activist Dick Gregory and former Vikings star Joey Browner.

“I think this demonstration is going to show the best of Minnesota,” U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum, one of the rally speakers and one of the most outspoken opponents of the nickname on Capitol Hill, just a few miles from the team’s stadium in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., said to the Star-Tribune.

“Never in my history in dealing with issues like this have we had [this level] of solidarity of civil rights and human rights organizations and all the tribal people,” said Clyde Bellecourt, a longtime leader and co-founder of the American Indian Movement.

The protest will be the fourth of its size in the area against the use of Indian imagery since the Minnesota Twins-Atlanta Braves World Series in 1991, according to the report.

McCollum had requested in August that the University of Minnesota bar the use of the Redskins name from the stadium and promotional materials for the Nov. 2 game, and university president Eric Kaler said in response that the school would make "every effort" to do so. It was then reported that the university requested the Redskins to wear throwback jerseys with no team name or logo for the game.

The Vikings, who have leased the use of TCF Bank Stadium from the university while their new stadium is being constructed, said they were obligated by the NFL to treat the game like any other home game and thus wouldn't bar the use of the Redskins name. But the team said it was "sensitive to the issue."

Opposition to "Redskins" has grown over the past year, with critics labeling it an offensive and racist nickname. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder and other team officials have remained adamant that they won't change the name, citing history and support for the name among Native Americans.

The Vikings and Redskins meet at 1 p.m. ET on Sunday.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/10/31/washington-redskins-name-protest-minnesota-vikings
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #129 on: March 25, 2015, 09:51:24 AM »

Justice Department defends decision to strip Redskins' trademark

Photo: Larry French/Getty Images
BY SI WIRE
Posted: Tue Mar. 24, 2015

The U.S. Department of Justice defended the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision to revoke the Washington Redskins' trademark on their nickname in a document filed in federal court Monday.

The franchise filed a federal lawsuit after the trademark board stripped it of federal trademark protections on the grounds that the nickname and logo are "disparaging to Native Americans." The suit claims that the law the board based its decision on "effectively chills First Amendment free speech rights."

"Not only do trademarks function only minimally as a vehicle for expression, but trademark registration also involves the necessary participation of the government in approving that registration, which confers relaxed First Amendment review even when combined with the speech of a private party," the Justice Department's filing read, according to The Washington Times.

• ​Native American group launches anti-'Redskins' telephone campaign

Opposition to the team's nickname is nothing new but has increased dramatically in recent years.

• New Yorker cover mocks 'Redskins' nickname

A SI poll in September found that only 25 percent of fans thought the name should be changed.

NFL broadcasters used "Redskins" 27 percent less often during telecasts this season, according to a Deadspin study. In September, the FCC said it would consider punishing a Washington radio station for using the nickname. In December it announced that station would not be punished because the name is not profane.

• BARSHOP: Youth leagues also wrestling with Redskins nickname

A senator from Washington state also announced she would introduce legislation to strip the NFL of its tax-exempt status as a response to the league's support of the nickname.

Washington owner Dan Snyder infamously told USA Today in 2013, "We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER — you can use caps."

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/03/24/washington-redskins-name-change-lawsuit-justice-department
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21941


I am 2nd Amendment Positive!


« Reply #130 on: March 25, 2015, 10:14:06 AM »

Don't people have better things to do like climate change?   Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #131 on: June 23, 2015, 02:50:45 PM »

Confederate flag case cited in Redskins trademark battle
Associated Press

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week on license plates and the Confederate flag could be bad news for the Washington Redskins.


Lawyers for Native Americans who object to the Redskins' trademark say their case has been strengthened by a recent Supreme Court ruling on the Confederate flag. AP Photo/Alex Brandon

A judge Tuesday heard arguments in U.S. District Court on a lawsuit filed by the team seeking to preserve its trademark registration for the Redskins name. Last year the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the team's trademark registration should be canceled on the grounds that it may be offensive to Native Americans.

U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, who will decide the case, asked lawyers at the start of the hearing to focus on how that Supreme Court case affects the Redskins' case.

Jeff Lopez, lawyer for the Native Americans, said their case has been boosted because the high court ruled that Texas was not infringing on the free speech rights of a Confederate heritage group by rejecting a special interest license plate design that shows the Confederate flag. Similarly, he argued, the federal government is not infringing on the Redskins' free speech rights just by denying them the protection of a federal trademark.

The Redskins' lawyer, Robert Raskopf, said the two cases are distinct because license plates are issued by the state, and forcing the state to print license plates with the Confederate flag is equivalent to forcing the government to adopt the Confederate group's appreciation for the flag. In contrast, he said, merely issuing a trademark registration does not require the government to take a position advocating the Redskins' viewpoint.

The team has argued in court papers that losing its trademark protections infringes upon its free speech rights. Lawyers for the Native Americans say the case has nothing to do with free speech. The Redskins are free to use the name even if they lose the trademark battle; they just lose some of the legal protections that go along with a registered trademark.

The Justice Department has also intervened in the case on the side of the Native Americans. The intervention was prompted by the team challenging the constitutionality of the law that requires trademark examiners to evaluate whether a trademark is disparaging.

Lee questioned the team on how exactly it would be harmed by losing the trademark registration.

"No one is going to forget the Redskins trademark or team if the registration is canceled," he said.

Raskopf countered that "trademark registration is a staple of brand management" in the modern era and that no corporation today would pursue a brand development strategy without a trademark registration.

Besides all the narrow legal questions, Lee also heard arguments on the fundamental substantive question in the case: whether the Redskins name is in fact offensive. More specifically, the judge must evaluate whether the name was offensive to Native Americans back in the 1970s and '80s, when the mark was last registered.

The team denies the name is offensive. It cites the fact high school and Little League teams on Indian reservations have used the Redskins name. It also says that, in a modern context, the name Redskins has essentially become synonymous with the football team and has its own positive association unrelated to the word's use as a description of Native Americans.

Lawyers for the Native Americans say there is a 40-year history of tribal leaders and activists objecting to the Redskins name. They also cite the dictionary: Many editions, though not all, have described the word as pejorative for many decades.

Lee will issue a written ruling at a later date. He can rule for either side or he can determine that the case should be decided at a formal bench trial later this year.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13136383/confederate-flag-case-cited-washington-redskins-trademark-battle
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #132 on: July 06, 2015, 09:32:21 AM »

Obama Administration Turns Screws on Redskins Over Name
By Dylan Gwinn
July 4, 2015

Remember that time the Obama administration took a courageous stand against the face of evil and racism in our time? Me neither. No, instead the Obama Administration has contented itself with throwing down the gauntlet in the face of an NFL team.

If the Redskins want to move back to the District of Colombia, they need to cave and change their allegedly racist name. According to The Hill:

The Obama administration will likely block Washington, D.C., authorities from building a new stadium for the NFL's Washington Redskins because of objections to the team’s name.

The National Park Service (NPS) owns the land under the 54-year-old Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, a venue two miles east of the Capitol that hosted the Redskins from 1961 to 1996. Some city leaders want to demolish the current stadium and build a new one to lure the football team back from suburban Maryland.

But Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, whose department includes the NPS, told D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in April that, unless the Redskins change their name, the Obama administration would not work to accommodate construction of a new venue, according to The Washington Post.

In a letter a month later, a local NPS official told Bowser the agency opposed the idea of building a new stadium.”

It’s important to note that the Redskins “controversy” is almost entirely driven by media activism, birthed mainly by the arrogant elitists at The Washington Post and enthusiastically pushed by the left-wingers that dominate sports journalism. (They’re the kind who sneer that fans who just want to enjoy football are “on the wrong side of history.”) There is no groundswell of public outrage and most Native Americans don’t care

But the Obama administration officially has adopted a tougher stance with the Washington Redskins than he has the holocaust-denying, soon-to-be nuclear powerhouse of Iran.

Moreover, the Redskins new stadium would have been built in Washington, D.C., which is overwhelmingly black, and the people who worked in that stadium would have been overwhelmingly black. However, instead of helping the people who were instrumental in his election and re-election, while faring far worse under his economic tutelage, than any other demographic group, other than teenagers, Obama has decided that facing down the scourge of “Redskin-ism” is a bigger priority.

But he did sing “Amazing Grace.” So, there’s that.

Conveniently, King Putt didn’t believe hosting his adopted hometown Chicago Blackhawks (very racist) after their last Stanley Cup Championship on the federal lands of the White House constituted any kind of problem. Not holding my breath that he’ll do any 180 this time around either.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dylan-gwinn/2015/07/04/obama-administration-turns-screws-redskins-over-name#sthash.a0g9lPmT.dpuf
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #133 on: July 08, 2015, 01:06:12 PM »

Judge upholds ruling against Redskins' trademark; team to appeal
ESPN.com news services

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- For the first time in a legal battle that has stretched over 20 years, a federal judge on Wednesday ordered the cancellation of the Washington Redskins' trademark registration, ruling that the team name may be disparaging to Native Americans.

The ruling does not bar the team from using the Redskins name if it wishes. The team could even still sue for trademark infringement, but winning such a case could prove more complex without the legal protections that come with a federally registered trademark.

"Dan Snyder and the NFL have to face the fact that we have a changing country. How long do they want to fight that?"
Joel Barkin, spokesman for the Change the Mascot campaign
Redskins president Bruce Allen said the team will appeal.

"I am surprised by the judge's decision to prevent us from presenting our evidence in an open trial," Allen said in a statement Wednesday. "We look forward to winning on appeal after a fair and impartial review of the case. We are convinced that we will win because the facts and the law are on the side of our franchise that has proudly used the name Redskins for more than 80 years."

Ray Halbritter, Oneida Indian Nation Representative and the leader of the Change the Mascot campaign, which works to educate the public on the damaging nature of the "redskin" moniker, issued a statement in response to Allen.

"If something happening decades ago was reason alone to continue doing it, then America would still have Jim Crow laws and Confederate flags would still be flying on top of state capitol buildings. Bruce Allen's comments perfectly illustrate why the NFL has a crisis on its hands: at a time when America is demanding an end to outdated symbols of bigotry, one of the league's teams insists on continuing to promote, market and profit off an offensive and racist symbol.

"The NFL must take action against an owner and his team, which have clearly lost control of themselves to the point where they are going to court to try to continue slurring people of color."

The ruling by Judge Gerald Bruce Lee affirms an earlier finding by an administrative appeal board. The judge ordered the federal Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the registration.

Lee emphasized in his 70-page ruling that the organization is still free to use the name if it wishes -- the team would just lose some legal protections that go along with federal registration of a trademark.

"We look forward to winning on appeal after a fair and impartial review of the case. We are convinced that we will win because the facts and the law are on the side of our franchise that has proudly used the name Redskins for more than 80 years."

Redskins president Bruce Allen
The team had sued to overturn a ruling against it by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The team argued that cancellation of its trademark infringed on its free-speech rights because it required the government to judge whether the name is offensive.

Jesse Witten, an attorney with Drinker Biddle & Reath, the law firm that represented the Native Americans in the case, said in a statement that Lee's "decision is a victory for human dignity and for my courageous clients who have waited so long for this ruling."

Earlier Tuesday, Jeff Lopez, a lawyer for the Native Americans who challenged the team's name, said he expected the Redskins to appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. But he said that Lee's ruling was an across-the-board victory for his clients and that he is confident it will be upheld.

Lopez said his clients are hopeful the team will heed the decision and change its name.

In rejecting the team's free-speech argument, Lee cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month allowing the state of Texas to bar depiction of the Confederate battle flag on specialty license plates sought by the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Joel Barkin, spokesman for the Change the Mascot campaign, also made a comparison to the Confederate flag in reacting to the ruling. He noted how quickly the culture has shifted views in rejecting the Confederate flag and in accepting same-sex marriage, and said the team and the National Football League will find themselves on the wrong side of history if they continue to defend the name.

Team owner "Dan Snyder and the NFL have to face the fact that we have a changing country," Barkin said. "How long do they want to fight that?"

Specifically, Lee said federal law allows the government to exercise editorial control over the content of the trademark registration program, and he equated trademark registration to government speech as opposed to private speech.

Lee said the legal standard for canceling the registration is whether the name "may disparage" a substantial composite of the Native American community. Though the team has maintained that the name honors Native Americans, Lee said there is ample evidence that the name can be perceived as disparaging. He cited the fact that Native American leaders have been objecting to the name for decades, along with dictionary citations that the word is typically considered offensive.

Amanda Blackhorse, one of the Native Americans who filed the most recent challenge to the team's name, said in a statement that she is pleased with the ruling.

"I have asked this many times before and have never heard a sensible answer -- if people wouldn't dare call a Native American a 'redskin' because they know it is offensive, how can an NFL football team have this name?" she said in a statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13220885/federal-judge-upholds-washington-redskins-trademark-ruling
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #134 on: August 17, 2015, 12:49:49 PM »

Bruce Allen: Redskins won't change name in order to build new home
John Keim, ESPN Staff Writer

RICHMOND, Va. -- Washington Redskins president Bruce Allen said the team will not reconsider changing its name -- even if it's a political barrier to a potential new stadium.

The Redskins have started the process of finding a new home, exploring potential sites in Maryland, where they now play; Washington, D.C., where they used to play; and Virginia, where they train. But Allen supplied a short answer when asked about changing the name stance to build a new home.

"No," he said.

Despite protests from Native Americans and others, the Redskins have maintained they won't change their longtime nickname. But Interior Secretary Sally Jewell opposes the team name, which could prove to be a hindrance if the Redskins want to return to Washington, D.C.


The Redskins are starting the process of finding a home to replace FedEx Field, but the team won't change its name for a new stadium, president Bruce Allen says. Geoff Burke/USA TODAY Sports

It's an issue because there isn't much land available in the district, but one potential spot would be where RFK Stadium, their former home, now stands.

"Secretary Jewell has been clear that she considers the Washington football team's name a relic of the past and believes it should be changed," Department of the Interior spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw told reporters in the spring.

The National Park Service leased that land to the city, and the lease doesn't expire for 22 years. But the Redskins would need an extension to build a stadium on the site since a stadium lease would go longer than 22 years.

It's not an immediate issue because the Redskins own the stadium and the land in Landover, Maryland but their lease with Prince George's county runs through 2026. Governors in both Maryland and Virginia have said Washington's nickname would not be an issue in trying to get a stadium built.

A new stadium could be agreed upon within the next few years. Allen said the Redskins are in the preliminary stages of designing their new stadium.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13454083/washington-redskins-not-drop-name-stadium-president-bruce-allen-says
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #135 on: October 12, 2015, 03:49:22 PM »

California schools barred from using 'Redskins' as team name or mascot
Melanie Mason
October 11, 2015, Reporting from Sacramento

California became the first state in the nation to pass a law prohibiting public schools from using the term "Redskins" as a team name or mascot.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday approved the measure barring the use of the term that many Native Americans find offensive but vetoed a separate measure that would have barred public properties from being named after individuals associated with the Confederacy.

As of Jan. 1, 2017, all public schools will be barred from using the term "Redskin," which many Native Americans consider a racial slur. The measure by Assemblyman Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville) will allow schools that use materials that contain the term, such as uniforms, to phase out their use to alleviate cost concerns. The new law will affect four California high schools in Merced, Calaveras, Tulare and Madera counties.

Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter and National Congress of American Indians Executive Director Jackie Pata, leaders of the advocacy group Change the Mascot, used the new California law to exert pressure on the Washington Redskins, the professional football team that has faced sharp criticism over its name.

"This landmark legislation eliminating the R-word in California schools clearly demonstrates that this issue is not going away, and that opposition to the Washington team on this issue is only intensifying. The NFL should act immediately to press the team to change the name,” Halbritter and Pata said in a statement.

Brown was less receptive to a bill by state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda) that sought to prohibit public buildings and parks from carrying the name of Confederate figures.

Glazer introduced the bill after a mass shooting in Charleston, S.C., catalyzed a movement to remove the Confederate flag from public buildings.

Brown, in his veto message, said such an action was "long overdue." But he said the naming of public buildings was different and an issue "quintessentially for local decision makers."

"Local governments are laboratories of democracy, which, under most circumstances, are quite capable of deciding for themselves which of their buildings and parks should be named, and after whom," Brown wrote.

Glazer, a former Brown adviser, rebuked the governor’s veto on Twitter.

“Locals have had decades to remove confederate leaders from places of honor in Ca. Veto is hollow defense of unacceptable status quo,” Glazer wrote.

Also on Sunday, in a final sweep of bill actions for the year, Brown approved laws that will:

* Ban professional baseball players from using chewing tobacco on the playing field of major league stadiums.

* Authorize state employees to use ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft and short-term rentals such as Airbnb while traveling on state business.

* Legalize the use of electronic skateboards.

Brown also vetoed a measure that would have expanded unpaid family leave to allow workers to take up to 12 weeks off to care for an ailing sibling, grandparent, grandchild, parent-in-law or domestic partner.

The governor, in his veto message, said the bill by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) created a disparity between state and federal law that could require employers in some cases to grant up to 24 weeks of leave.

"I am open to legislation to allow workers to take leave for additional family members that does not create this anomaly," Brown wrote.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pc-redskins-mascot-banned-20151011-story.html
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #136 on: October 13, 2015, 03:43:09 AM »

can Congress call for an Offensive Line chance for the team?
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #137 on: December 22, 2015, 06:00:17 PM »

Boost for Redskins? Court rules against trademark law used in NFL case
By  Courtney Stein Vargas 
Published December 22, 2015
FoxNews.com

The Washington Redskins received an early Christmas gift Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled against a trademark law that has been used to challenge the team’s name.

The D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the federal Lanham Act's ban on "disparaging" trademark registrations is viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

The ruling came in a separate case filed in 2013 by members of an Oregon band called The Slants, who were refused a registration of their trademark on the grounds that their name is offensive to Asian Americans.

But the ruling falls in line with what the Redskins are arguing in their appeal, which is pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal judge in July initially ordered that the Redskins’ trademark registration be revoked. The team appealed, and the Native Americans who challenged the trademark have until Jan. 14 to file their response to the Redskins’ appeal.

The decision in the case involving The Slants could loom large.

At issue was a federal trademark law barring registration of trademarks that "may disparage" individuals or groups or "bring them into contempt or disrepute."

The federal court in D.C. now says it’s unconstitutional for the government to refuse to register trademarks because it disapproves of the messages or concludes that they may be disparaging to others.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/22/boost-for-redskins-court-rules-against-trademark-law-used-in-nfl-case.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #138 on: June 19, 2017, 10:30:39 AM »

Supreme Court: Rejecting trademarks that ‘disparage’ others violates the First Amendment
 The outcome is likely to affect the legal case of the Washington Redskins, whose trademark registration was revoked in 2014 under the same disparagement clause. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
By Robert Barnes June 19, 2017

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law that prohibits the government from registering trademarks that “disparage” others violates the First Amendment, a decision that could impact the Washington Redskins’ efforts to hang on to its controversial name.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. delivered the opinion for a largely united court. He said the law could not be saved just because it evenhandedly prohibits disparagement of all groups.

“That is viewpoint discrimination in the sense relevant here: Giving offense is a viewpoint,” Alito wrote.

He added that the disparagement clause in the law “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

All of the participating justices — Neil M. Gorsuch was not on the court when the case was argued — joined that part of Alito’s opinion. Four justices peeled off from parts of the opinion where they say Alito opined on more than what was needed to decide the case.

The trademark office in 2011 said registering the trademark of the Slants, an Asian American rock group, would violate a part of the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act that prohibits registration of a trademark that “may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

The office said the name was likely to disparage a significant number of Asian Americans. But founder Simon Tam said the point of the band’s name is just the opposite: an attempt to reclaim a slur and use it as “a badge of pride.”

In a Facebook post after the decision, Tam wrote:

“After an excruciating legal battle that has spanned nearly eight years, we’re beyond humbled and thrilled to have won this case at the Supreme Court. This journey has always been much bigger than our band: it’s been about the rights of all marginalized communities to determine what’s best for ourselves.”

Tam lost in the first legal rounds. But then a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the law violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The government may not “penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys,” a majority of that court found.

The outcome is likely to affect the legal case of the Washington Redskins, whose trademark registration was revoked in 2014 under the same disparagement clause.

The Redskins filed an amicus brief supporting the Slants, which was cited in the opinion. The Washington football team’s case, however, is moving on a separate track.

 Play Video 2:55
He says ‘Redskins’ is just a name, she says it’s offensive
Rusty and Anita Whitworth are members of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation in western Montana. Rusty was part of a survey by The Washington Post that found 9 in 10 Native Americans do not think the term is distasteful. (Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)

“The team is thrilled with today’s unanimous decision as it resolves the Redskins’ long-standing dispute with the government,” Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said in a statement. “The Supreme Court vindicated the team’s position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the government’s opinion.”

Free speech advocates had supported The Slants, and the court’s decision seemed likely from the oral arguments.

But some worried about what kinds of trademarks the government will now be forced to register. “It seems this decision will indeed open the floodgates to applications for all sorts of potentially offensive and hateful marks,” said Lisa Simpson, an intellectual property lawyer in New York. She added: “While this may be the right result under the First Amendment and the principles of free speech that are foundational to our country, it seems the responsibility will now pass to the public.”

The team’s trademark registration was canceled in 2014 after decades of use. The team asked a district judge in Virginia to overturn the cancellation and was refused. The case is now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Slants case.

Registration of a trademark provides a nationwide defense against others who would try to use it.

The case is Matal v. Tam.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejecting-trademarks-that-disparage-others-violates-the-first-amendment/2017/06/19/26a33ffa-23b3-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.9ef5df0aceab
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19227


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #139 on: June 19, 2017, 10:44:03 AM »

Another loss for obama the fag and his cult of idiot losers.   
Report to moderator   Logged
mazrim
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3628



« Reply #140 on: June 20, 2017, 09:19:57 AM »

Supreme Court: Rejecting trademarks that ‘disparage’ others violates the First Amendment
 The outcome is likely to affect the legal case of the Washington Redskins, whose trademark registration was revoked in 2014 under the same disparagement clause. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
By Robert Barnes June 19, 2017

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law that prohibits the government from registering trademarks that “disparage” others violates the First Amendment, a decision that could impact the Washington Redskins’ efforts to hang on to its controversial name.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. delivered the opinion for a largely united court. He said the law could not be saved just because it evenhandedly prohibits disparagement of all groups.

“That is viewpoint discrimination in the sense relevant here: Giving offense is a viewpoint,” Alito wrote.

He added that the disparagement clause in the law “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

All of the participating justices — Neil M. Gorsuch was not on the court when the case was argued — joined that part of Alito’s opinion. Four justices peeled off from parts of the opinion where they say Alito opined on more than what was needed to decide the case.

The trademark office in 2011 said registering the trademark of the Slants, an Asian American rock group, would violate a part of the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act that prohibits registration of a trademark that “may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

The office said the name was likely to disparage a significant number of Asian Americans. But founder Simon Tam said the point of the band’s name is just the opposite: an attempt to reclaim a slur and use it as “a badge of pride.”

In a Facebook post after the decision, Tam wrote:

“After an excruciating legal battle that has spanned nearly eight years, we’re beyond humbled and thrilled to have won this case at the Supreme Court. This journey has always been much bigger than our band: it’s been about the rights of all marginalized communities to determine what’s best for ourselves.”

Tam lost in the first legal rounds. But then a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the law violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The government may not “penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys,” a majority of that court found.

The outcome is likely to affect the legal case of the Washington Redskins, whose trademark registration was revoked in 2014 under the same disparagement clause.

The Redskins filed an amicus brief supporting the Slants, which was cited in the opinion. The Washington football team’s case, however, is moving on a separate track.

 Play Video 2:55
He says ‘Redskins’ is just a name, she says it’s offensive
Rusty and Anita Whitworth are members of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation in western Montana. Rusty was part of a survey by The Washington Post that found 9 in 10 Native Americans do not think the term is distasteful. (Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)

“The team is thrilled with today’s unanimous decision as it resolves the Redskins’ long-standing dispute with the government,” Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said in a statement. “The Supreme Court vindicated the team’s position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the government’s opinion.”

Free speech advocates had supported The Slants, and the court’s decision seemed likely from the oral arguments.

But some worried about what kinds of trademarks the government will now be forced to register. “It seems this decision will indeed open the floodgates to applications for all sorts of potentially offensive and hateful marks,” said Lisa Simpson, an intellectual property lawyer in New York. She added: “While this may be the right result under the First Amendment and the principles of free speech that are foundational to our country, it seems the responsibility will now pass to the public.”

The team’s trademark registration was canceled in 2014 after decades of use. The team asked a district judge in Virginia to overturn the cancellation and was refused. The case is now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Slants case.

Registration of a trademark provides a nationwide defense against others who would try to use it.

The case is Matal v. Tam.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejecting-trademarks-that-disparage-others-violates-the-first-amendment/2017/06/19/26a33ffa-23b3-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.9ef5df0aceab

Good ruling.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 54268

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #141 on: January 29, 2018, 06:33:58 PM »

Cleveland Indians Will Remove 'Chief Wahoo' From Uniforms In 2019

January 29, 2018
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/29/581590453/cleveland-indians-will-remove-chief-wahoo-from-uniforms-in-2019
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19227


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #142 on: May 17, 2018, 05:14:33 AM »

Prominent Chief Wahoo protester pleads guilty to stealing federal money meant for Native Americans
https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2018/05/prominent_chief_wahoo_proteste_1.html#incart_m-rpt-1 ^ | May 17, 2018
Posted on 5/17/2018, 9:00:23 AM by Wolfie

Prominent Chief Wahoo protester pleads guilty to stealing federal money meant for Native Americans

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A prominent activist known for his opposition to the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo mascot pleaded guilty Wednesday to stealing more than $77,000 in federal grant money meant to benefit Native Americans in Northeast Ohio.

Robert Roche, 71, of Cleveland, pleaded guilty to two counts of theft of government funds. Federal prosecutors say he embezzled Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration grant money awarded to the Parma-based American Indian Education Center, where he served as executive director.

Federal authorities said he used the money to pay personal expenses.

Roche and the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to recommend a sentence of between 10 and 16 months in federal prison, though both sides can also ask for the judge to vary up or down from that range. Roche also agreed to pay back the money he stole.

Senior U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent will sentence him Aug. 29.

Roche, who is Chiricahua Apache Indian, has been a vocal advocate for the need for more resources for Native Americans. He has also been a well-known face in the movement to rid Cleveland of Chief Wahoo, the controversial mascot of the Indians the team is phasing out. He has had a lower profile since his indictment.

Roche arrived at the courtroom late for Wednesday's hearing. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Greenberg asked Roche a set of standard questions about his mental fitness. Roche noted he was in the early stages of dementia.

After an off-the-record conversation between the judge, prosecutors and Roche's attorney Larry Zukerman -- and then one between Zukerman and Roche -- Roche indicated he was fully cognizant of the plea and the proceeding. He read along with his plea agreement as Assistant U.S. Attorney Alejandro Abreu recited the facts of his case out loud and indicated they were correct.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services investigated Roche for several years before his indictment in August.

Investigators said Roche worked with consultant Craig McGuire to steal Circle of Care grant money. McGuire, whose company wrote grant applications, pleaded guilty in April 2017 to conspiracy and theft of government funds.

The grants the pair secured were supposed to support mental health and wellness programs for Native American children and families, according to Roche's indictment.

Prosecutors said SAMHSA sent Roche's non-profit $482,766 grants between 2011 and 2013 and did not get all the money it was awarded because SAMHSA placed it in "high risk" status. Of that money, Roche and McGuire embezzled a combined $183,703, according to the indictment.

Roche took a salary by classifying himself as a project coordinator of the programs paid for by the grant, even though the grant's regulations precluded him from doing so, prosecutors said. The grant applications also contained false statements, prosecutors say.

"This defendant stole from taxpayers and betrayed the Native American families he purported to help," U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman said in a statement.

Zukerman declined to comment after the hearing.

McGuire, of Lewis Center, agreed to cooperate with the government when he pleaded guilty. He has yet to be sentenced.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!