ACLU asks federal court to reverse cancellation of Redskins trademarks

[struggle4progress]

POSTED 6:29 PM, NOVEMBER 6, 2015
BY ALIX BRYAN

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief urging Richmond’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the cancellation of the Washington Redskin’s trademarks ...

The district court said the ruling did not violate the Redskins First Amendment rights.

“The ACLU agrees that the Washington team’s name and trademarks are disparaging to Native Americans, and we have made clear that we believe that the team should change its name and discontinue use of its current trademarks,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Claire Guthrie Gastañaga. “At the same time, however, we believe that government is prohibited by the First Amendment from denying a trademark on that basis.”

The Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute also distributed a press release ...

http://wtvr.com/2015/11/06/aclu-asks-federal-court-to-reverse-cancellation-of-redskins-trademarks/

[geomon666]

1. ACLU is wrong on this one.

It's not a first amendment issue.

[Egnever]

2. I agree

They should change the name but it does seem to be against the first amendment for the government to cancel the trademark on the grounds it is offensive.

[NobodyHere]

3. I'm not a fan of the government determining what is and isn't offensive

I'll go with the ACLU on this one.

[merrily]

6. The statute says a trademark cannot be offensive. The Office has no choice but to determine

if the trademark is offensive or not. It's probably been making that determination for a century or more.

Having a right to speak offensively may be different from a right to have the US government trademark and protect offensive speech.

That said, if the wealthy owner of the Redskins wants to fight this in court, fine. Not as though he can't afford it. I don't see using limited, donated funds for this purpose.

[NutmegYankee]

9. The question is whether the law is valid.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. I respectfully disagree

This is exactly the kind of the thing the ACLU should be involved in.

The ACLU simply filed a brief, they aren't fighting the case in court. I'm with the ACLU on this, and think it's exactly the kind of thing donated funds should be spent on.

[merrily]

11. Filing a brief is fighting a case in court. Not as plaintiff or as defendant, but as amicus. Still,

it's fighting a case in court. And it does use scarce resources that could be used to benefit people who are billionaires and need representation.

But, you arecertainly entitled to disagree anyway.

[hifiguy]

4. I stand with the ACLU.

[Nye Bevan]

7. Me too.

The name should be changed, but not because some man from the government has decided that it's offensive.

[merrily]

5. I love the ACLU, but they should leave this to the wealthy owner of the Redskins and his, her, its

or their legal team.

Using donated money to fight for a racist logo of a rich franchise is very poor use of limited, donated funds, IMO.

And, yes, I do understand free speech.

[onenote]

12. Using donated money to defend the right of Nazis to march in Skokie

also probably was viewed by many as a poor use of limited, donated funds. But the ACLU doesn't decide what speech to defend based on its popularity or who the speaker is and that's a good thing

[merrily]

13. Different issue entirely. I was not making a popularity argument, but an economic one.

Even a casual reading of my prior post would pick up all the money references. As my prior post said, yes, I do understand free speech. I am familiar with the Skokie case. As far as I know none of the Nazis who wanted to march had millions of dollars to fight the case without help from the ACLU.

Also as far as I know, there's no evidence that the Redskins' owner can't afford legal fees or that the owner's attorneys are incompetent. I'd rather see the ACLU use its limited and donated resources to fight for someone who could not afford to fight for his, her or its own rights. Sue me.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. What it takes to file an amicus brief

is a drop in the bucket of both what the ACLU receives in donations and what it takes an actual plaintiff to file and argue the case in court.

[onenote]

15. Does that mean you think the ACLU erred in filing an amicus in the Pentagon Papers case

After all, the New York Times and the Washington Post had the resources to higher top lawyers (such as Floyd Abrams).

[merrily]

16. Shall we review every case in which the ACLU filed on behalf a wealthy plaintiff or defendant? Or

shall we stick with the topic of this OP? I'm going with the latter.

[X_Digger]

17. Wait, you set those criteria, and now you object when those same criteria are applied elsewhere??

1. Having Cake
2. Eating Cake

Pick one.

[merrily]

18. wth? I objected to discussing a case other than the one in the OP.

I did not object to applying any criteria to any case.

[onenote]

19. Awfully defensive aren't we? I think the problem is that you understand the first amendment

but don't understand the ACLU. When it participates in a case, it doesn't do so to represent parties. It represents the first amendment. Which makes the identity of the parties basically irrelevant.

[merrily]

20. Defensive? Dude, move on.

[onenote]

21. Nah, dudette. I think I'll stick around. But feel free to leave whenever you want.

[NutmegYankee]

8. The ACLU is right.

This case if lost could put a huge hole in the first Amendment and open the door to more regulation (Censorship) of speech.