This will be short and bitter.
I am hearing the typical libertarianish/conservative response to the Trademark and Patent Office ruling regarding the Washington DC NFL team. They pulled it because it was a disparaging name.
The response meme from those aghast at this ruling is typically about the slippery slope of gummint interference in commerce, business decisions, private decisions, and daily life.
This is the typical response, and I do understand where it comes from, and the concerns that it reflects:
"At first blush, it might seem obvious that the USPTO should have the ability to deny registration to racist or vulgar trademarks,” wrote Gabe Rottman, a legislative counsel for the ACLU, last December in an essay considering the team’s trademark question. “But, as with all things free speech, who gets to decide what’s racist or vulgar? That’s right, the government, which is just ill-equipped to make these kinds of determinations.”hunsel for the ACLU, last December in an essay considering the team’s trademark question. “But, as with all things free speech, who gets to decide what’s racist or vulgar? That’s right, the government, which is just ill-equipped to make these kinds of determinations.”
You don’t really want government agencies to become the arbiter of acceptable words and images. You really don’t. The main reason you don’t is because, like it or not, what’s offensive is subjective. It creates “a morass of uncertainty,” Rottman wrote. Consider how many offensive violations someone could find in one episode of “The Family Guy.” Or “Game of Thrones,” or “Orange Is The New Black.”
“Being offended is the natural consequence of leaving one’s home,” Fran Lebowitz wrote. She added, “I do not like after-shave lotion, adults who roller skate, children who speak French, or anyone who is unduly tan. I do not, however, go around enacting legislation and putting up signs.”
Ok, that is all well and good, and perhaps I am being a little liberal, a little theoretical here; but…
Isn’t this a case of - technically - the Government determining that it will NOT interfere? I realize that is a bit simplistic, but why would such a rugged individual as Dan Snyder need such protections anyway? Aren't there scruples and morals of his competitors - other businessmen - that prevent them from making money off of Snyder's stuff? He can't stand on his own? He needs the government to protect him?
Of course my facetious nature is showing, but for all of those who say we should leave people to twist in the wind of profit motives and privatization, why can't you trust your competition to keep their fucking hands off without the government making them keep their greedy hands off???
The fucking companies who obtain patent and trademark and service mark and copyright protection are normally happy to stand on their own feet as rugged American individualist randians. And yet, they run to the federal gummint for protection? The fact that one of them is no longer getting that protection from the gummint is the issue here.
This reminds me of the wonderful unicorn of the free market, where no assistance to any individual or small business is considered capitalism, but assistance to giant supply side businesses is somehow consistent with that very same “free” market. Just listen to the howls of protest if the corporate welfare was taken away. When corporations need the government they run to it, and when they don’t need it, they decry it as evil.
(Sigh)