Obama considers revoking trademark protection for the Washington Redskins’ name because some people said it was offensive

It was recently reported that the Obama administration was considering revoking trademark protection for the Washington Redskins’ name because some people said it was offensive.

This could set a horrible precedent.

Just about every R-rated movie includes content that someone would consider offensive, whether that content be violence, sex, profanity, etc. The same can be said for the content of many books, the lyrics of many songs, the content of many paintings, etc. If any copyright, patent, trademark, etc., can be revoked because someone finds it offensive, then I can’t even begin to imagine how much damage this would cause to the concept of intellectual property, as well as to the arts, sciences, music, literature, movies, etc.

There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. The whole point of protecting free speech in the first place is to protect speech that some people might find offensive. If we only protected speech that was dull, bland, and non-controversial, there wouldn’t be much point to having such protection in the first place.

About these ads

January 21, 2014. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Politics, Racism, Sports.

4 Comments

  1. A “Get Ready Forum” Caveman replied:

    OK then let’s add to that list:
    The Raiders – it glorifies violence and lawlessness
    The Patriots – old slave owning white guys,
    The Yankess – offensive to all southerners

    PC policies, a substitute for reasonable thought.

    • drketedc replied:

      Wouldn’t ‘Yankees’ be offensive to northerners? I thought it was a southern pejorative for those from the north. Though, I admit it doesn’t bother me. ‘Sticks and stones’ and all. Which is the point, I suppose. Who can be completely aware of all the ways a word will used to take offense? Nothing wrong with being polite, but this is crazy. Does no one consider intent anymore?

  2. johnd2 replied:

    A trademark is a privately held asset. Only a would be dictator would contemplate taking it.

  3. George replied:

    Offence is taken by choice and is completely beyond the control of the speaker. The words “You offended me” are a nonsequiter and arise from the false premise that the speaker has control of the listener’s emotions and can therefore cause offence.
    My prayer is, defenders of the targeted speaker would point this out prior to defending the speaker’s position.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback URI

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 394 other followers

%d bloggers like this: