The Battle Over 'Washington Redskins' Could End in the Supreme Court
A petition has been sent to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to decide whether the Washington Redskins team name is offensive enough to be denied federal trademark protections. According to The New York Times, the petition argues that the "disparagement clause" of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the trademarking of "scandalous, immoral, or disparaging" names, applies to "Redskins" since the term is widely perceived to be a racial slur.
It's unclear if the Supreme Court will give the petition considerable attention. And even if SCOTUS were to take up the case, the Court may lean in favor of Dan Snyder's organization, given its previously ruling that the First Amendment protects despicable behaviors like military funeral protests and displays of animal cruelty. But then again, SCOTUS could uphold the ruling of a federal judge who ordered the cancellation of the team's federal trademark registrations.
Placing limitations on the First Amendment could potentially be a slippery-slope, which is why SCOTUS protected controversial things like funeral protests in the first place. Hopefully there's a better and more efficient way to remove a team name without setting a universal precedent that could benefit censors.
The appeal to rid the NFL of all things "Redskins" should directed toward Roger Goodell and applied to the league, specifically. But given Goodell's track record of inaction regarding this issue, we don't blame the petitioners for going beyond his office.
[h/t: The New York Times]
