The Washington Redskins scored a legal victory in the continuing battle over their name. The ruling didn't decide whether or not the name is offensive. Instead the ruling came on a technicality that the plaintiffs waited too long to bring their suit against the team.
"U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly made a similar finding in 2003, but the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2005 that one of the plaintiffs at that time was only one years old when Washington registered “Redskins” as a trademark in 1993. The Appeals Court said the District Court should review its finding in that light.
The District Court found no reason to change it’s findings, noting that the plaintiff in question waited eight years after his 18th birthday to file the suit. However, the court did not rule on the “appropriateness of the imagery,” but on the timeliness of the suit itself."
Hopefully this is the end of the battle. I understand why the Native Americans would bring suit, but I don't believe that the name should be removed. It is not being used in an offensive manner. Maybe I'm a little biased because the Redskins are my team, but we always cannot avoid offending someone. No matter what someone is gonna get offended, and sometimes they have to live with it.
1 comment:
Jedi,
When Jay-Z moves the Nets to Brooklyn in a few years, would it be ok for him to change the nickname to the Brooklyn N***as?
Personally, I could care less about the name either way, but I understand the outrage. From someone growing up in Scranton, they had to change the school mascot my senior year because Red Raiders was deemed offensive.
Being in the Bay Area, maybe it could have all been avoided by changing the mascot to a pirate with an eyepatch.
Post a Comment