Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
You cannot discuss this without discussing the usage in general.
Certainly you see the difference between 1) a group of white people using what is considered a racial slur against American Indians; and 2) a predominantly Black organization using a word for a specific reason and continuing to use the word in the predominantly Black organization's name despite internal debate as a reminder to never forget from whence we came, out of respect for the context of the founding, and (some would argue) respect for the different races and ethnicities ("colors") of people who have worked with and been served by the NAACP.
Debating whether there should be a trademark issue with the NAACP is silly when the context is completely different and the internal discussions regarding the use of "colored" in NAACP has not led to trademark concerns. Therefore this is a moot issue and if you don't see the difference, I must respectfully ask you to sit over there with Kevin.
Trademark decisions are not the government telling us when to be offended.  You want to debate the government trademark issue and I only care about people being able to fight against what they deem offensive. The legality of that is for the legal people to battle. |
I very much see the difference between the Redskins and the NAACP in terms of usage. I am concerned with arming the government with discretion in this type of matter. If the government interprets this, they would be forced to treat the NAACP the same way, even though the context is clearly different. These should be social issues, and beyond the grasp of the government. People and companies have a right to be stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, whatever. They will be treated accordingly by society and the free market. The government should not be defining what is or is not offensive.