[BostonCard]

I don't understand how a government agency cancelling a registration "because the term is disparaging to Native Americans" is not considered a free speech issue.  If a private entity fired someone for saying something disparaging, sure.  That's not government action.

I'm not saying that ultimately a court would rule that this is speech protected by the Constitution.

But government action punishing someone for the disparaging aspect of words?  I think your all caps big font response is a bit much, stupac2.

Just to be clear, the power of the government to grant or revoke trademarks is not rooted in the first amendment, but rather in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which states that Commerce has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."  A trademark is considered an exercise of commerce, and falls within the Commerce clause, unless used exclusively within a state.

Since none of this is to say that the Redskins cannot continue to use their name, I completely fail to see how this represents a suppression of speech.  Yes, there are some who would prefer the Redskins rename themselves (I among them), and some who are hoping that the government will put more pressure on the NFL in general and the Redskins in particular, for example, by threatening to revoke the antitrust exemption the NFL owns (personally, I believe that exemption should be revoked, but it should not be used as a means to threaten the Redskins).

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't understand how a government agency cancelling a registration "because the term is disparaging to Native Americans" is not considered a free speech issue.  If a private entity fired someone for saying something disparaging, sure.  That's not government action.

I'm not saying that ultimately a court would rule that this is speech protected by the Constitution.

But government action punishing someone for the disparaging aspect of words?  I think your all caps big font response is a bit much, stupac2.

Just to be clear, the power of the government to grant or revoke trademarks is not rooted in the first amendment, but rather in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which states that Commerce has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."  A trademark is considered an exercise of commerce, and falls within the Commerce clause, unless used exclusively within a state.

Since none of this is to say that the Redskins cannot continue to use their name, I completely fail to see how this represents a suppression of speech.  Yes, there are some who would prefer the Redskins rename themselves (I among them), and some who are hoping that the government will put more pressure on the NFL in general and the Redskins in particular, for example, by threatening to revoke the antitrust exemption the NFL owns (personally, I believe that exemption should be revoked, but it should not be used as a means to threaten the Redskins).

BC