A new Slant on the Redskins debate

[Gob]

An Oregon band's bid for the right to trademark their "offensive" name has reached the US Supreme Court.




The case was brought to the Supreme Court by The Slants after their trademark was refused because the name is disparaging to Asian-Americans.

The Asian-American band acknowledges the name may offend, but say they chose it to "reappropriate" its meaning.

The ruling could impact the high-profile case of the American football team, the Washington Redskins.

In 2014 the US Patent and Trademark Office cancelled the team's six trademarks, including the lucrative team logo, after years of complaints from Native American groups.

The Slants had first attempted to register their band name in 2011, and sued after they were refused.

The Portland, Oregon "dance-rock" band, which is made up entirely of Asian-Americans, claimed that they chose the name to take back the racial epithet.

A lawyer for bandleader Simon Tam argued that his client "was following in the long tradition of 'reappropriation,' in which members of minority groups have reclaimed terms that were once directed at them as insults and turned them outward as badges of pride."

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the band's case. Hearings will begin next week and are expected to last several months.

Redskins owner Dan Snyder has said that the team's name honours Native-American groups, and has long refused to change the name.

President Obama has repeatedly suggested that it is time for the team name of the US capitol city to change.

The nation needs to "break stereotypes", Mr Obama said in 2015 at a White House Tribal Nations conference.

"I believe that includes our sports teams," he added.

Redskins lawyers note that other offensive names have previously been approved the patent office, including trademarks for Yellowman, Red Man, Black Tail, Jap and Moonie.

The court is not expected to issue its ruling for several months.

[Big RR]

Hearings will begin next week and are expected to last several months.

Not sure what this is referring to; the USSC is an appellate court and hears oral arguments after the case is briefed. Normally, the hearing is less than an hour, but it can be longer if the Court grants leave to extend it. I have never heard of hearings extending for months. Sue or Guin, have you?

[Joe Guy]

They should just call themselves, 'The Lousy Drivers'.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Is this is just the start of a slippery slope?

[Long Run]

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the band's case. Hearings will begin next week and are expected to last several months.

Sloppy journalism (what's new, but I think the story is from BBC so maybe we can forgive them for not knowing our legal system). I think they are referring to how long the Court's next term is.

The case will be heard in the Court's next term, which runs from Monday, Oct. 3, to June of next year.

http://www.oregonlive.com/music/index.s ... court.html

[Big RR]

That makes a lot more sense.

[Gob]

'That is a proud moment, but there's a slope on it'