Senate GOP Has Made Their Decision on Whether They'll Nuke the Filibuster
This House GOP Rep Is Missing...and He Represents One of the Most Competitive...
From Death Row: ‘Thank You’ From Christian Brothers Facing Execution for Their Faith
Democrats Can't Distance Themselves From Hasan Piker Now
A North Carolina School Superintendent Sees Nothing Wrong With This LGTBQ Book for...
It Sure Sounds Like Hakeem Jeffries Just Tried to Threaten the VA Supreme...
Rich NY Writer Who Called Stealing a 'Political Protest' Melts Down When Confronted...
Teenage Girl Suffers Concussion After Vicious Daylight Attack in NYC
A Virginia Democrat Just Proved His Party Doesn't Understand Rural America
Illegal Alien in Custody Following Horror Attack on Mom, Three-Year-Old Girl at San...
Australia and Sweden Teamed Up for the Most Unnecessary Scientific Study of All...
Search and Rescue Efforts Underway After Massive Tornado Strikes Vance Air Force Base...
This GOP Rep Is Calling for the Pardon of the Special Forces Soldier...
Pete Hegseth Warns Our Allies That the Time for Free-Riding Is Over
Exposed: A Suspected Sex Trafficking Operation Steps From NBC, Fox News in Midtown...
OPINION

Defending Property Rights is a Uniquely American Duty

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Defending Property Rights is a Uniquely American Duty

There’s no shortage of piling-on when it comes to the controversy over the name of the Washington Redskins football team. But too often overlooked is the government’s response to all the noise. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) created a fatal contradiction for itself when it announced on June 18 that it would cancel the trademarks of the Washington Redskins. In handing down the decision, the PTO claimed the name was disparaging. However, a Freedom of Information Act request showed that nobody complained to the PTO about being disparaged by the name, revealing the decision as entirely subjective.

Advertisement

The pro-Redskins arguments that take on the false hope that the name was meant to honor Native Americans are elementary and almost as offensive as the name itself. The real issue boils down to the one that essentially launched the republic: whether we are a nation of laws or a nation of men. Is the rule of law inviolable or is it elastic depending on who is in charge of government? If the Obama administration or any future administration can direct bureaucrats to unilaterally determine that which is disparaging, there is no end to abuse. It’s a powerful issue, one that is only a few short steps from the novel Fahrenheit 451 and the question of who determines which books are to be burned.

Should Quentin Tarantino lose his property rights associated with the movie D'jango Unchained because it contains offensive racial dialog? Can the trademarks and copyright associated with certain works by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens for you English Lit majors) be revoked because they contain racial epithets? Are composers and performers of songs that include disparaging references to people of different racial groups or sexual proclivities at risk of losing the protections previously granted through trademarks and copyright? As an African-American man, I’m not crazy about words like ‘negro’ or ‘colored’ so perhaps the PTO needs to take action against the trademarks of the United Negro College Fund and the NAACP.

Advertisement

This is not an issue of who can be the least offensive. For more than 75 years the Redskins name was socially acceptable and enjoyed trademark protections (though a similar PTO decision was overturned on appeal by the team). Via that protection, the name and the Redskin brand grew into valuable property.

Alas, an enforcement arm of the United States government now refuses to continue to protect the $1.7 billion property of team owner Dan Snyder because of a couple of public opinion polls and a capricious administration. Has the collective right of a slice of our citizenry not to be offended trumped trademark protection for Snyder’s property - especially when the government protected that property in the first place?

Not protecting the Washington Redskin trademark because it offends people is nothing more than a form of eminent domain; emotional eminent domain. Collectively, the government wants to strip Snyder of trademark protections for his property under the guise of “the public good.” And, in this case, the government today believes the “public good” is to avoid offense, but this action only deprives Snyder of due process. Adding insult to injury, the government wishes to take this trademark protection without any form of compensation. As for whether Snyder may decide to change anything about the name of his football team to maintain his property rights protections, one wonders if the PTO would reverse itself should Snyder keep the name but change the mascot from an American Indian to a redskin potato. The notion is no less absurd than the PTO ruling.

Advertisement

I and other black Americans understand thoroughly that words can leave deep wounds. But I am an American first and black second. As citizens in a nation of laws, it is not only 100 percent American to protect private property, speech and ideas that we find abhorrent; it is almost anti-American not to do so. Protecting the repugnant and the offensive, whether they are rich or poor, is not only our duty. It is what makes us uniquely American.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement