The US Patent and Trademark Office cancelled the Washington Redskins trademark registration in June 2014, ruling the name was disparaging to Native Americans. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder refused to change the name, saying it represents honor and respect. The ACLU then filed a lawsuit against the USPTO's decision, arguing that while they believe the name is offensive, the government should not have the power to restrict speech or decide what is offensive. Their case is about protecting First Amendment rights rather than supporting the Redskins.

1. and the
The First Amendment

2. The Washington Redskins name controversy involoves the
name and logo of the NFL franchise located in Washington
D.C.
Native American individuals have been questioning the use of
the name and image for decades
SITUATION

3. SITUATION
June 2014
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancel the
Washington Redskins trademark registration
The 99-page decision by the Trademark Trial
and Appeal Board said the team’s name and
logo are disparaging. It dilutes the Redskins’
legal protection against infringement and
hinders the team’s ability to block
counterfeit merchandise from entering the
country.

4. OWNER’S RESPONSE
Owner, Daniel Snyder says:
"A Redskin is a football player. A Redskin is our fans. The
Washington Redskins fan base represents honor,
represents respect, represents pride. Hopefully winning,"
Snyder said. "And, and, it, it's a positive. Taken out of
context, you can take things out of context all over the
place. But in this particular case, it is what it is. It's very
obvious."

5. OWNER’S RESPONSE

6. FALLOUT
‘Redskins’ Mentions
Down 27% On NFL
Broadcasts

7. Several politicians have called on Snyder to change
the team's name, including Attorney General Eric
Holder, Sen. Harry Reid and former Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton. President Barack
Obama said last year that if he owned the Redskins,
"I'd think about changing [the name]."
FALLOUT

8. FALLOUT

9. FALLOUT

10. FALLOUT

11. ACLU
Now, the ACLU is filing a lawsuit against the USPTO. In
a piece for ACLU.org, Esha Bhandari wrote:
“We don’t disagree with that judgment, but the
government should not be able to decide what types of
speech are forbidden – even when the speech in
question reflects viewpoints we all agree are repellent.”
“Our brief is on behalf of the First Amendment, not the
Redskins.”

12. ACLU
The ACLU’s argument is not about whether or not you
believe “Redskins” is offensive, it’s about whether or
not you believe the federal government has the right to
make that decision.
The ACLU, even though it’s in agreement regarding the
allegedly offensive nature of the name, is willing to
fight for the First Amendment.

13. ACLU
To justify such censorship, the government must
demonstrate that the harms it seeks to address are real
and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a
material degree. In addition, the courts have found,
such a restriction "may not be sustained if it provides
only ineffective or remote support for the
government's purpose." These mandates are "critical,"
for otherwise "[the government] could with ease
restrict commercial speech in the service of other
objectives that could not themselves justify a burden
on commercial expression."

14.  In this case, what is the governmental purpose in depriving
the Redskins of their trademark registration?
 Is it that the government is serving as a morality teacher?
 Is it choosing a favored position, and then enforcing it by
only giving government benefits to companies that agree
with that orthodoxy?
 Do you trust any government to tell you what your morality
should be?
 If so, do you trust this government to do that?

15. WORKS CITED
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/09/aclus-strange-fight-for-redskin-trademark/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/opinion/randazza-redskins-constitutional/
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/265700-youll-never-believe-aclu-going-now/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/06/aclu-argues-that-
cancellation-of-redskins-trademark-violates-the-first-amendment/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-
registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-
dad2ec039789_story.html
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11313245/daniel-snyder-redskins-term-honor-respect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDc8436qESU