In order to preserve freedom Americans must be willing to continually endure tests of our principles. Are our freedoms truly our principles? Or do they just sound nice? Can we attest that we live in a free country if we cannot abide speech that is unpopular? For those who understand liberty and the enlightenment ideals upon which our nation was founded, it has always been clear that a nation which offers protection for free speech must also protect that speech which some find offensive.
For modern “progressives,” however, this sacred principle is lost; enacting a tyrannical breed of political correctness is, to liberals, more important than the preservation of basic freedoms.
That is why many intolerant liberals cheered in March when the Obama Regime revoked the longstanding trademark protection of the Washington Redskins, one of the oldest NFL teams.
To football fans, it will come as no surprise to learn that a debate has been raging within the past year over the name “Redskins,” a term some find offensive to American Indians. The Obama Regime weighed-in on the controversy and revoked the trademark protections of the name. The decision from the patent office read, “…these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered.”
The move sent a shiver down the spines of patriotic Americans as it became clear that the federal government, our government, was willing to victimize groups who do not spinelessly bend to their interpretations of politically correct doctrine.
Thankfully, justice won-out on Tuesday as a federal court ruled that the revocation of trademarks on the grounds that such trademarks are “offensive” is unconstitutional.
The ruling from the Federal Circuit held:
“Many of the marks rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities,” the appeals court wrote. “But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech.”
“The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks,” the court wrote.
The ruling, oddly enough, did not come-about as a result of the Redskins case, but actually involved a musical group called “The Slants,” a term some find to be an offensive term for Asians.
This issue may not be entirely settled as the case could be heard by the Supreme Court. However, the federal court ruling is a tremendous victory for free speech proponents, political correctness opponents and, of course, Washington Redskins fans.