The Slants win!!!
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15761
- 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!!!
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.
Re: The Slants win!!!
Major Kong wrote:Justices say law on offensive trademarks is unconstitutional
Awesome.
"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
-
- Posts: 2052
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:12 pm
- Alma Mater: VT
- Party: libertarian
Re: The Slants win!!!
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.
“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.
- UpstateSCHokie
- Posts: 11982
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm
Re: The Slants win!!!
Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
Re: The Slants win!!!
You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- UpstateSCHokie
- Posts: 11982
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm
Re: The Slants win!!!
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.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: The Slants win!!!
Yep. VB was more of the anti-redskins crusaderUpstateSCHokie wrote: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.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: The Slants win!!!
You're correct. Nolan and the unusuals have selective memory when it suits them.UpstateSCHokie wrote: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.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: The Slants win!!!
I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote: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.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: The Slants win!!!
It appears the Usuals have conflated legality with good taste.nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote: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.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: The Slants win!!!
uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote: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.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: The Slants win!!!
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.awesome guy wrote:uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote: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.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: The Slants win!!!
That's your typical derpy response of creating a business crisis and then calling it a business decision. Thug.nolanvt wrote: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.awesome guy wrote:uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote: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.nolanvt wrote:You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- Major Kong
- Posts: 15761
- 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!!!
It appears the Unusuals have conflated illegality with good taste.ip_law-hokie wrote:It appears the Usuals have conflated legality with good taste.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.
Re: The Slants win!!!
What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: The Slants win!!!
VisorBoy wrote:What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: The Slants win!!!
I've never said the Redskins name was offensive.awesome guy wrote:That's your typical derpy response of creating a business crisis and then calling it a business decision. Thug.nolanvt wrote: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.awesome guy wrote:uh huh, you said it was business decision based on the courts ruling it offensive. So that's what you were saying.nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins should lose their trademark. I don't get offended by team names.UpstateSCHokie wrote: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.nolanvt wrote: You've got me confused with someone else. You'll get em next time, champ.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: The Slants win!!!
nolanvt wrote:I've never said the Redskins name was offensive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LOL
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: The Slants win!!!
"Of all of the Indian mascots out there, I think the only one that could be offensive and categorized as a slur is Redskins."nolanvt wrote: I've never said the Redskins name was offensive.
Re: The Slants win!!!
"Hail to the Redskins!"Major Kong wrote:Justices say law on offensive trademarks is unconstitutional
Re: The Slants win!!!
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.awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: The Slants win!!!
VisorBoy wrote: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.awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
Come on dude, you're better than this.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Re: The Slants win!!!
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'.awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote: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.awesome guy wrote:VisorBoy wrote:What does patriotism have to do with this ruling?UpstateSCHokie wrote:Definitely not a good day for the nolans of the world. But a GREAT day for patriots & Constitutionalists!
because it affirmed the 1st amendment.
Come on dude, you're better than this.
Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.
Re: The Slants win!!!
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
http://uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5702&start=100
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: The Slants win!!!
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.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'.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.