The Slants win!!!

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
Major Kong
Posts: 15726
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
Party: Independent
Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford

The Slants win!!!

Post by Major Kong »

I only post using 100% recycled electrons.

Image
HokieJoe
Posts: 13122
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by HokieJoe »

"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Vienna_Hokie
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:12 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: libertarian

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by Vienna_Hokie »

Reading or publishing this opinion listed as a micro-aggression on campuses in 3...2....1.....

“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought we hate,” Alito said in a part of his opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.

Writing separately, Justice Anthony Kennedy said ban on disparaging trademarks was a clear form of viewpoint discrimination that is forbidden under the First Amendment.

“A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all,” Kennedy said in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Looks like the only thing 1984 got wrong was the date.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by nolanvt »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by awesome guy »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.
Yep. VB was more of the anti-redskins crusader
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by USN_Hokie »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.
You're correct. Nolan and the unusuals have selective memory when it suits them.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by nolanvt »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.
I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by ip_law-hokie »

nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.
I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It appears the Usuals have conflated legality with good taste.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by awesome guy »

nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.
I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by nolanvt »

awesome guy wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.
I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.
I said it makes business sense for the NFL to change the name if the trademark were to be no longer legally enforceable. That's Business 101-type stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by awesome guy »

nolanvt wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.
I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.
I said it makes business sense for the NFL to change the name if the trademark were to be no longer legally enforceable. That's Business 101-type stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's your typical derpy response of creating a business crisis and then calling it a business decision. Thug.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Major Kong
Posts: 15726
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
Party: Independent
Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by Major Kong »

ip_law-hokie wrote:It appears the Usuals have conflated legality with good taste.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It appears the Unusuals have conflated illegality with good taste.
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.

Image
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by VisorBoy »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by awesome guy »

VisorBoy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?

because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by nolanvt »

awesome guy wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
nolanvt wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
nolanvt wrote: You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are there 2 nolans on this board? I'm pretty sure there was a nolan posting here that did not think the Redskins should be able to keep their name. If I got you mixed up with the other guy, my apologies.
I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.
I said it makes business sense for the NFL to change the name if the trademark were to be no longer legally enforceable. That's Business 101-type stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's your typical derpy response of creating a business crisis and then calling it a business decision. Thug.
I've never said the Redskins name was offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by awesome guy »

nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins name was offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by USN_Hokie »

nolanvt wrote: I've never said the Redskins name was offensive.
"Of all of the Indian mascots out there, I think the only one that could be offensive and categorized as a slur is Redskins."
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by Hokie5150 »

"Hail to the Redskins!"
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by VisorBoy »

awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?

because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
Whichever way SCOTUS ruled could be considered as a protection/interpretation of the Constitution, as that is their very role. The opposite decision may not align with someone's opinion, but it doesn't mean that the Constitution is necessarily not upheld.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by awesome guy »

VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?

because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
Whichever way SCOTUS ruled could be considered as a protection/interpretation of the Constitution, as that is their very role. The opposite decision may not align with someone's opinion, but it doesn't mean that the Constitution is necessarily not upheld.

Come on dude, you're better than this.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
VisorBoy
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by VisorBoy »

awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VisorBoy wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?

because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
Whichever way SCOTUS ruled could be considered as a protection/interpretation of the Constitution, as that is their very role. The opposite decision may not align with someone's opinion, but it doesn't mean that the Constitution is necessarily not upheld.

Come on dude, you're better than this.
If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by BigDave »

Nolan said that as a fan, he favors the name changing. He never said the government should force them to change the name.

http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5702&start=100
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: The Slants win!!!

Post by awesome guy »

VisorBoy wrote:If there were only 1 way to rule in every case to protect the Constitution, then there would never be a legitimate complaint about a ruling. Sometimes the Court decides between 'protecting the Constitution' and 'protecting the Constitution'.
I hope you can see my eyes rolling from there. It's spectacular. There is 1 way to rule in a first amendment case to protect the constitution. You're just making things up, there isn't a constitutional basis to rule in favor of banning speech. Do better.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Post Reply