I don’t give much of a tinker’s dam about the Washington Redskins name – although I think that the unconscious patronizating done by the ACLU author here is remarkable in its utter lack of self-awareness, and remarkably privileged – but the important thing is that the right answer is gotten to. The right answer, in this case, being ‘keep the government out of this one.’
The Washington Redskins is a name that is offensive and perpetuates racism against Native Americans. Should it be changed? Yes. But should the government get to make that call? As we told a federal district court yesterday, the answer is no, because the First Amendment protects against government interference in private speech.
I know, I know: it’s always weird to see the ACLU not embrace the progressive line. Or, more accurately, not allow its embrace of the progressive line to get in the way of championing actual free speech issues. I blame Barack Obama. Or maybe ‘credit?’ Clearly, it’s all his responsibility. Somehow.
Moe Lane
PS: [This was a very cranky PS. Let’s not have a fight about the ACLU in the comments section, OK?]
they have done this kinda thing before. Skokie comes to mind. if we praise them some maybe they’ll learn to do this more.
If we praise them, they may recalibrate and turn the other way. It seems to me their compass is left first, free speech second.
Wasn’t it Uncle Milt who is credited with the sentiment that we should make it profitable for bad people to do good things? Kind of sounds like this one…
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”
.
As I read it, that means that the government has no right to tell the Redskins what they can or cannot call themselves. It has nothing to do with issuing, or refusing to issue, a trademark. The government can’t stop you from speaking, but it doesn’t have to grant special protection for your speech, either. In short, without compelling evidence that trademark revocation constitutes abridgment of speech, this doesn’t seem to be a First Amendment issue.
.
Having said that, it’s fairly obvious why defenders of the Redskins (or, in the case of the ACLU, “defenders”) have chosen this tack. The only other plausible way for them to attack federal trademark law is by raising a Commerce Clause issue. And if this is a Commerce Clause case, under current precedent, they lose. (Then again, maybe they should try the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 — if the Equal Protection Clause can be stretched to allow gay marriage, who knows how much farther it can be stretched?)
I would argue that revocation of the trademark based on people getting offended is the government interfering with a company’s free speech. People are free to not buy merchandise with the name on it and they can take their dollars elsewhere.
.
It’s not unlike the latest liberal idea of taking away bullets. After all, it says “keep and bear arms” so restrictions on ammunition is “different.”
.
Personally, I want the people protesting this to slam enough scotch and ambien until they wake up in a less offensive world. But I’m a bit cranky on this issue.
Just pointing out that it isn’t Indians who are offended.
It’s lily-white progressives who are offended on their behalf.
Indians have more important things to worry about. Such as progressives.
Very few are all evil or all good ..
.
The ACLU, especially as their self-image includes the strong meme that they are the heroes, must – by definition – do things that we agree with, from time to time.
.
Don’t expect them to continue, but do call out approval .. if nothing else, it’ll confuse the hell out of some of their less .. nuanced .. supporters.
.
Mew