In The News Today...

Quote: AZDuffman

For starters the First Amendment allows (for now) you to disparage government, that is an institution. In "Falwell v Flynt" the SCOTUS said you can disparage a person.

You can say "Falwell is a fool." But you can't trademark "Falwell is a fool." The 1st Amendment will keep you out of jail, but it won't protect your trademark or your license plate.

Here's my question: if a bigot (we'll call him "Bill") writes a book claiming that the Holocaust is a lie and another bigot (we'll call him "Barry") plagiarizes his book word for word, can Bill sue Barry for copyright infringement?

Mixed feelings here.

Y'all know where I stand concerning the issue. As a mixed race who's dealt with a lifetime of disparaging comments from both sides of the fence, there is a part of me that is glad for the weakening of this name. I can't help it. Too much personal history there.

But watching this unfold, I can't help but to be mostly bothered. Firstly, it reminds me all too much of what I constantly bitch about in my gun threads. It's political force, pandering to the loudest and coming in like robber barons stripping someone of something. Despite that the result is something I want, I can't support the means of obtaining it.

Second, as bad as the first is, everything about this just seems wrong. It seems fake. I mean, there's nothing I would love more than for the Gov to make a good faith gesture to my people. But this is not that. This... this is just weird. Where'd it come from? Where was it for my whole life, or indeed the last 80 years?

I dunno. Standing by to see how this unfolds.

Quote: AZDuffman

Eventually the tribes will be forgotten entirely.

Most Native American Indian groups were living
in societies which are defined by anthropologists
as Stone Age, and still would be today if they
hadn't been invaded and taken over. But try
saying that to a bunch of Indians and they will,
well, stone you.. It's not a judgement or even
an opinion. That they were living a Stone Age
lifestyle is a fact.

Quote: Evenbob

Most Native American Indian groups were living
in societies which are defined by anthropologists
as Stone Age, and still would be today if they
hadn't been invaded and taken over. But try
saying that to a bunch of Indians and they will,
well, stone you.. It's not a judgement or even
an opinion. That they were living a Stone Age
lifestyle is a fact.

No cars, no jobs, no taxes, no cities, no electronics. Just hunting and fishing and farming and f=%÷ing.

I fail to see the improvement brought by the Europeans ;)

Quote: AZDuffman

The Indians who sued for this should be very careful what they wish for as next will be Chiefs and Braves. Then Indian names will disappear from more and more things all in the idea "not to offend." Eventually the tribes will be forgotten entirely.

They may not mind so much. The most populous full blooded tribe is Cherokee.

Consider the honor googling the name bestows on them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Cherokee&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=vVuiU-WmJ8yeyAT42ILADA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=734

Quote: reno

Under the Lanham Act of 1946, the federal government is not allowed to register trademarks that “disparage” any “persons,” “institutions,” or “beliefs.”

You're missing the point. The Boston Redskins were established over 80 years ago. It seems a little ridiculous that it's taken 80+ years to decide that their name is offensive enough to take action like this.

Quote: Face

Where'd it come from? Where was it for my whole life, or indeed the last 80 years?

The Redskins' copyright battle has been going on for a long time, this is not a new development. Headline on the front page of the Washington Post from 1999: "Redskins Are Denied Trademarks."

That Post article is from April of 1999. Snyder bought the team in May of 1999. So this was not some surprise that snuck up on him, they'd been litigating it since 1992! Snyder knew exactly what he signed up for when he bought the team: there was a reasonable risk he'd lose the trademark, and he took the gamble anyway.

Fine, maybe Snyder didn't know the depressing history of this word. But for God's sake, can someone buy him a dictionary?

Quote: Face

I fail to see the improvement brought by the Europeans ;)

The vast majority of Indians never bathed and
were illiterate savages, constantly at war with
each other. No real medicine except herbs,
which amounts to no medicine at all. They
were horrible polluters, they moved a lot
because they made the areas they lived
in unlivable. The 'cool' way the Indians lived is
mostly a myth. If they weren't being raided
by other tribes, they lived a filthy hand to
mouth existence. Just like the third world
countries do today. Life expectancy was low,
infant mortality was high, and women dying
during childbirth was off the charts.

But they did live outdoors, they had that
going for them.

NY State Senator Introduces State Citizenship Bill, Would Allow Current Undocumented Immigrants to Run for Office

Are you freakin serious, New York??? So now you guys want to let illegals vote and run for office?!?! *facepalm*

Quote: reno

You can say "Falwell is a fool." But you can't trademark "Falwell is a fool." The 1st Amendment will keep you out of jail, but it won't protect your trademark or your license plate.

That is the point, you should be allowed to based on the Constitution. Against an individual is a little tougher to justify, but "Redskins" hurts nobody individually. It is like the restaurant some guy opened called "Coon Chicken Inn."

BTW: A license plate is not a valid example. It is something the state produces and as such can control what is displayed.

Quote:

Here's my question: if a bigot (we'll call him "Bill") writes a book claiming that the Holocaust is a lie and another bigot (we'll call him "Barry") plagiarizes his book word for word, can Bill sue Barry for copyright infringement?

Yes, he can, as Barry is stealing his property.