Name Change News

Talk about the Washington Redskins here. Do you bleed burgundy and gold?
Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4524
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Re: Name Change News

Postby riggofan » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:02 am

grampi wrote:That's hilarious! You sound more like one of the protesters...


I'm 100% in favor of keeping the Redskins name. I just don't think the protestors are necessarily cranks, nuts or PC idiots. I think they probably have a legitimate complaint, just not a strong enough argument that the team should have to change the name. Its not really a difficult position to understand.

Hog
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:26 pm

Re: Name Change News

Postby grampi » Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:48 am

riggofan wrote:
grampi wrote:That's hilarious! You sound more like one of the protesters...


I'm 100% in favor of keeping the Redskins name. I just don't think the protestors are necessarily cranks, nuts or PC idiots. I think they probably have a legitimate complaint, just not a strong enough argument that the team should have to change the name. Its not really a difficult position to understand.


Sounds like my position on the matter actually...I don't really think they're whiners or crybabies (that was a bit harsh on my part), and I think those who are offended by the name have a valid point, I just think a lot of people would just like to know where the line is drawn on issues like this...does everything traditional in this country need to be "under review" regardless of how few people oppose it, or how many want to keep it? Where does it stop...or does it?

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15980
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Re: Name Change News

Postby Deadskins » Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:02 am

riggofan wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:it does not really matter about how many OR why people are offended by the team's name …
all that matters is that Dan Snyder has considered the pros and cons and he has decided that the name is not offensive TO HIM

THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS - it's his team and he does not feel that the name is offensive


Yeah, yeah, nobody can legally change the name but Dan Snyder. What does that have to do with anything?

It doesn't change the fact that there is a loud public debate about the name going on right now. It doesn't change the facts of the argument or the fact that 700+ people were out there protesting or that the national media is hammering him on it. The issue isn't whether or not Snyder can or wants to change the name. The issue is whether or not the Native Americans can bring enough pressure on him to make him change the name.

Two things:
1: Were these protestors Indians, or just Minnesotans?
2: I don't think Indians can ever bring that much pressure. It will have to come from other races.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15980
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Re: Name Change News

Postby Deadskins » Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:11 am

Kilmer72 wrote:If it goes to court and the Redskins win

It has, and they did. The supreme court is the only avenue now, and I doubt they're going to hear arguments on this issue.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

08 Champ
Online
Posts: 13156
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: on the bandwagon

Re: Name Change News

Postby SkinsJock » Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:17 am

Dan has been 'pressured' to change the name … he has decided not to do that …
he would have even worse 'pressure' if he were to even say that he might change his mind about that ….

Snyder is not a person that likes to be made to do anything and especially after he's stated that there's no reason to change the name


on and on it goes … HAIL to the Redskins
RG3 is now learning how to play QB in the NFL - Mike & Kyle did not help with the transition

Jay & Sean are going to make it happen ... "He has the ability and the desire, he just has to do it.” - J Gruden

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 4524
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:29 pm
Location: Montclair, Virginia

Re: Name Change News

Postby riggofan » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:46 am

Deadskins wrote:Two things:
1: Were these protestors Indians, or just Minnesotans?
2: I don't think Indians can ever bring that much pressure. It will have to come from other races.

[/quote]

Not sure, but I totally agree with your comment #2. Aren't there like 2 million native Americans in all of the U.S. today? Its less than 2% of the population.

#33
Posts: 4084
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:44 am

Re: Name Change News

Postby skinsfan#33 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:52 pm

Deadskins wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:If it goes to court and the Redskins win

It has, and they did. The supreme court is the only avenue now, and I doubt they're going to hear arguments on this issue.

Actually that isn't exactly true. The Indians won the original case, but the judgment was overturned on appeal because of a technicality. The judge ruled that the plaintiff was too old and should have filed in a timelier manner. The Indians that are the plaintiffs now are all young so the technicality won’t be an issue this time and unless the Skins have better representation this time they will probably lose.
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"
(It is time to roll the dice) Tai'shar Manetheren

"Duty is heavier than a Mountain, Death is lighter than a feather" Tai'shar Malkier

RIP James Oliver Rigney, Jr. 1948-2007

Hog
Online
User avatar
Posts: 1652
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:44 am
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Name Change News

Postby markshark84 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:09 pm

skinsfan#33 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:If it goes to court and the Redskins win

It has, and they did. The supreme court is the only avenue now, and I doubt they're going to hear arguments on this issue.

Actually that isn't exactly true. The Indians won the original case, but the judgment was overturned on appeal because of a technicality. The judge ruled that the plaintiff was too old and should have filed in a timelier manner. The Indians that are the plaintiffs now are all young so the technicality won’t be an issue this time and unless the Skins have better representation this time they will probably lose.


Was the case dismissed with or without prejudice (no pun intended)?

Because if it was dismissed with prejudice, then they can't retry the case.
RIP Sean Taylor. You will be missed.

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15980
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Re: Name Change News

Postby Deadskins » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:06 pm

skinsfan#33 wrote:
Deadskins wrote:
Kilmer72 wrote:If it goes to court and the Redskins win

It has, and they did. The supreme court is the only avenue now, and I doubt they're going to hear arguments on this issue.

Actually that isn't exactly true. The Indians won the original case, but the judgment was overturned on appeal because of a technicality. The judge ruled that the plaintiff was too old and should have filed in a timelier manner. The Indians that are the plaintiffs now are all young so the technicality won’t be an issue this time and unless the Skins have better representation this time they will probably lose.

Close, but incorrect. The appeals court judge ruled that the complaint wasn't filed in a timely manner, as the name was trademarked in the 60's, not that the complainant was too old. There is a new complaint in front of the trademark board with younger plaintiffs, not in the court system. And, to win, they would have to prove that the name was disparaging and offensive when it was trademarked, not in 2013.

In 1999, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the name was disparaging and should be changed, but the Redskins were able to overturn the decision in federal court. A U.S. district judge in 2003 found that the trademark office hadn’t explained why the Redskins mark was disparaging. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009 also sided with the Redskins, but for procedural reasons, concluding that the challengers had waited too long to make their complaint.

The trademark office is now considering the petition of a group of younger challengers, who weren’t alive when the Redskins first trademarked their name. The current petitioners are five Native Americans from different tribes who say they are offended by the team’s name. A decision by the trademark appeal board could come any day.

The Redskins says the term isn’t disparaging in the context of professional football.

“The record here is replete with factual evidence that Native Americans, including tribal chiefs and recognized leaders, react positively to ‘Redskins’ as used to denote the NFL’s professional football team from Washington, D.C.,” said Robert L. Raskopf, an attorney representing the Redskins, in a brief filed with the trademark office. Mr. Raskopf wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Under federal trademark law, what matters is how a term was perceived at the time of registration, notes law professor Barton Beebe, a trademark scholar at New York University. So the Redskins say it’s not enough for the challengers to show that the term is disparaging to people in 2013, but say they would have to show that it was widely seen as an offensive term decades ago.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/10/21/the ... trademark/
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

Return to Hog Wash - Washington Redskins Football