Two years after Obama revokes trademark protection for Washington Redskins, 90% of Native Americans say they are not offended by the term

In June 2014, the Obama administration revoked trademark protection for the Washington Redskins’ name because some people thought it was offensive.

This sets 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.

And now, two years later, we get a new reason for why Obama was not justified to do what he did: a poll by the Washington Post shows that 90% of Native Americans are not offended by the Washington Redskins name.