and theThe First

Amendment

The Washington Redskins name controversy involoves the name and logo of the NFL franchise located in Washington D.C.

Native American individuals have been questioning the use of the name and image for decades

SITUATION

SITUATIONJune 2014U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancel the Washington Redskins trademark registrationThe 99-page decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board said the team’s name and logo are disparaging. It dilutes the Redskins’ legal protection against infringement and hinders the team’s ability to block counterfeit merchandise from entering the country.

OWNER’S RESPONSEOwner, Daniel Snyder says:"A Redskin is a football player. A Redskin is our fans. The Washington Redskins fan base represents honor, represents respect, represents pride. Hopefully winning," Snyder said. "And, and, it, it's a positive. Taken out of context, you can take things out of context all over the place. But in this particular case, it is what it is. It's very obvious."

OWNER’S RESPONSE

FALLOUT‘Redskins’ Mentions Down 27% On NFL Broadcasts

Several politicians have called on Snyder to change the team's name, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Sen. Harry Reid and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. President Barack Obama said last year that if he owned the Redskins, "I'd think about changing [the name]."

FALLOUT

FALLOUT

FALLOUT

FALLOUT

ACLUNow, the ACLU is filing a lawsuit against the USPTO. In a piece for ACLU.org, Esha Bhandari wrote:

“We don’t disagree with that judgment, but the government should not be able to decide what types of speech are forbidden – even when the speech in question reflects viewpoints we all agree are repellent.”

“Our brief is on behalf of the First Amendment, not the Redskins.”

ACLUThe ACLU’s argument is not about whether or not you believe “Redskins” is offensive, it’s about whether or not you believe the federal government has the right to make that decision.

The ACLU, even though it’s in agreement regarding the allegedly offensive nature of the name, is willing to fight for the First Amendment.

ACLUTo justify such censorship, the government must demonstrate that the harms it seeks to address are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree. In addition, the courts have found, such a restriction "may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government's purpose." These mandates are "critical," for otherwise "[the government] could with ease restrict commercial speech in the service of other objectives that could not themselves justify a burden on commercial expression."

In this case, what is the governmental purpose in depriving the Redskins of their trademark registration?

Is it that the government is serving as a morality teacher?

Is it choosing a favored position, and then enforcing it by only giving government benefits to companies that agree with that orthodoxy?

Do you trust any government to tell you what your morality should be?

If so, do you trust this government to do that?

WORKS CITEDhttps://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/09/aclus-strange-fight-for-redskin-trademark/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/opinion/randazza-redskins-constitutional/

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/265700-youll-never-believe-aclu-going-now/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/06/aclu-argues-that-cancellation-of-redskins-trademark-violates-the-first-amendment/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11313245/daniel-snyder-redskins-term-honor-respect

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDc8436qESU