Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Oct '16 16:40
    https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/supreme-court-rejects-trademark-appeal-from-washington-redskins-150634854.html

    The Redskins NFL lost their appeal to SCOTUS on keeping their name.

    So now any terms the 9 justices deem as "offensive" is now illegal.

    So what other words should they ban?
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    03 Oct '16 18:14
    Originally posted by whodey
    https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/supreme-court-rejects-trademark-appeal-from-washington-redskins-150634854.html

    The Redskins NFL lost their appeal to SCOTUS on keeping their name.

    So now any terms the 9 justices deem as "offensive" is now illegal.

    So what other words should they ban?
    Correcting your stupidity is a full time job.

    Read this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-declines-hear-redskins-copyright-appeal-135346178--nfl.html

    The case has nothing to do with making words "illegal" but whether the government should grant trademark protection to terms deemed offensive. Not only that, but it appears the decision was purely procedural; the Washington NFL franchise wanted the SCOTUS to step in even before the lower court ruled on their appeal of a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the agency empowered by statute to make trademark decisions in the first instance) - something the SCOTUS almost never does.
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Oct '16 18:341 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Correcting your stupidity is a full time job.

    Read this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-declines-hear-redskins-copyright-appeal-135346178--nfl.html

    The case has nothing to do with making words "illegal" but whether the government should grant trademark protection to terms deemed offensive. Not only that, but it appears the dec ...[text shortened]... ute to make trademark decisions in the first instance) - something the SCOTUS almost never does.
    But the trademark is a word and it has been deemed illegal.

    To run to this left winged court is insane. I know how they will rule before ever being asked.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    03 Oct '16 18:38
    Originally posted by whodey
    But the trademark is a word and it has been deemed illegal.

    To run to this left winged court is insane. I know how they will rule before ever being asked.
    🙄🙄🙄

    You are truly hopeless.
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    03 Oct '16 18:43
    Originally posted by whodey
    But the trademark is a word and it has been deemed illegal.

    To run to this left winged court is insane. I know how they will rule before ever being asked.
    Perhaps you should look up what a trademark is before crying about it.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Oct '16 20:54
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Perhaps you should look up what a trademark is before crying about it.
    Is the word "Redskins" their trademark, yes or no?
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Oct '16 20:55
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    🙄🙄🙄

    You are truly hopeless.
    The restriction of the usage of a word in the business world is the topic at hand
  8. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1391
    03 Oct '16 21:072 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    The restriction of the usage of a word in the business world is the topic at hand
    I know this might be too deep for you to fathom Whodey, but debating this legal topic with a legal expert is a lot like debating the finer points of brain surgery with a brain surgeon. You're out of your league here. Please show an ounce of common sense, and drop the subject.😴
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Oct '16 21:12
    Originally posted by mchill
    I know this might be too deep for you to fathom Whodey, but debating this legal topic with a legal expert is a lot like debating the finer points of brain surgery with a brain surgeon. You're out of your league here. Please show an ounce of common sense, and drop the subject.
    I could care less about the legal aspects of this case other than the word "Redskins" is being censored in the business realm.

    So according to the fab 9, anything they deem offensive will be censored.
  10. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    03 Oct '16 21:14
    Originally posted by whodey
    The restriction of the usage of a word in the business world is the topic at hand
    Actually denying a private party a trademark is the opposite of " restriction of the usage of a word in the business world". The Washington NFL team would still be able to use the term if it so chooses; it just couldn't successfully use legal remedies against other entities or persons for doing the same.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    03 Oct '16 21:151 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I could care less about the legal aspects of this case other than the word "Redskins" is being censored in the business realm.

    So according to the fab 9, anything they deem offensive will be censored.
    LMAO!

    Pathetic. A reasonable translation of that post is:

    "I don't know what I am talking about and I don't WANT to know what I am talking about if it interferes with the propaganda value of my nonsensical statements".
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Oct '16 21:18
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Actually denying a private party a trademark is the opposite of " restriction of the usage of a word in the business world". The Washington NFL team would still be able to use the term if it so chooses; it just couldn't successfully use legal remedies against other entities or persons for doing the same.
    So in other words, SCOTUS has denied the Redskins the ability to protect their name in order to make money off of it, even though they are still free to use it.

    I guess SCOTUS is able to give the thumbs up or down for businesses that they find offensive or not.

    Sounds Constitutional to me.
  13. Joined
    15 Dec '03
    Moves
    281346
    03 Oct '16 21:221 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I could care less about the legal aspects of this case other than the word "Redskins" is being censored in the business realm.

    So according to the fab 9, anything they deem offensive will be censored.
    Fab 9? So, there's dead people on the SCOTUS? KInda like the the US voters now eh?
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39949
    03 Oct '16 21:33
    Originally posted by whodey
    So in other words, SCOTUS has denied the Redskins the ability to protect their name in order to make money off of it, even though they are still free to use it.

    I guess SCOTUS is able to give the thumbs up or down for businesses that they find offensive or not.

    Sounds Constitutional to me.
    When you're in a hole, stop digging.

    Businesses are asking the government to restrict other people's speech when they desire the legal protection of trademarks. Congress has allowed this under its regulatory power over commerce, but set certain restrictions on what can be used as a trademark. The dispute is over the finding of a board established by Congress to rule on trademark applications and renewals pursuant to the duly enacted statutes.

    I hate to keep explaining something to someone who utterly refuses to listen, but the SCOTUS hasn't even made a decision on the merits; it has merely said that the lower courts must rule first as per established procedure. So your hysteria is doubly wrong and particularly stupid.
  15. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1391
    03 Oct '16 23:012 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    LMAO!

    Pathetic. A reasonable translation of that post is:

    "I don't know what I am talking about and I don't WANT to know what I am talking about if it interferes with the propaganda value of my nonsensical statements".
    "I don't know what I am talking about and I don't WANT to know what I am talking about if it interferes with the propaganda value of my nonsensical statements".

    Now THAT's funny! 😀😀😀
    This is better than Jerry Seinfeld!
Back to Top