'You’re Not Wrong, You're Just an A**hole'

The Washington Redskins is a name that is offensive and perpetuates racism against Native Americans. Should it be changed? Yes. But should the government get to make that call? As we told a federal district court yesterday, the answer is no, because the First Amendment protects against government interference in private speech.

Nevertheless, the government has indeed weighed in. Last June, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancelled the football team's federally registered trademark, which it deemed disparaging to Native Americans. 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.

The team took the case to court, and the ACLU filed an amicus brief yesterday, alongside the ACLU of Virginia and NYU Tech Law & Policy clinic, arguing that the government cannot constitutionally deny trademark benefits on the basis of speech that it disagrees with or finds controversial. Our brief is on behalf of the First Amendment, not the Redskins. The ACLU has joined the loud chorus of people and groups calling on the team to change its name (we side with the Dude from "The Big Lebowski" on this one), but the government should not have the power to make decisions about which trademarks are too "immoral," "scandalous," or "disparaging" to be given trademark protection.

Unfortunately, a problematic trademark law, the Lanham Act, gives it that very power.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, these vague terms have led to a host of arbitrary decisions about what is "immoral" or "scandalous," leading to the inconsistent policing of speech. This results in the Trademark Office deciding that while it is permissible to register "Wanker" for beer, it is not allowed for clothing. And "Cocaine" is fine for clothing, but not for soft drinks. You can have a book series trademarked "Managing Your Inner A**hole" but not "The Complete A**hole's Guide To..." These inconsistencies are inevitable given the lack of any standards on what exactly constitutes an immoral, scandalous, or disparaging trademark.

Even more problematic is that the Trademark Office has attempted to protect minority groups from self-disparagement, by considering the race of the speaker. Take the example of the band The Slants. The band describes itself as Asian-American and chose its name as a method of reappropriating the term. The Trademark Office nonetheless rejected the trademark because of its members' ethnic heritage, stating that the term "slant" as applied to a band composed of Asian-Americans could only be seen as a slur.

Indeed, the reappropriation of terms that have historically disparaged marginalized groups is a common way for those same groups to reclaim the meaning of those terms and change social attitudes. Consider the fact that the group "Dykes on Bikes" had to fight to register its name, which was first rejected for being vulgar or disparaging, but later accepted after the group submitted evidence that the term "dyke" can be a source of pride for their community.

But why should the government get to play language police? It shouldn't – especially when experience shows that self-expression by women and sexual minorities is more likely to be deemed immoral or scandalous, and therefore more subject to government restriction under the present trademark law. Furthermore, cancelling the Washington team's trademark may not even be effective, because cancelling a trademark doesn't prevent the team from using it. It does, however, make it easier for other people to disseminate it. So the Trademark Office decision in this case might result in even more use of a distasteful term – not less.

The ACLU has a history of defending the speech rights of groups we disagree with, because the First Amendment doesn't protect only popular ideas. The Washington team's choice of name is unfortunate. They should be – and are being – pressured to change it. But it isn't government's role to pick and choose which viewpoints are acceptable and which are not.

Learn more about free speech and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alertsfollow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

View comments (37)
Read the Terms of Use


Just like with campaign finance you are again wrong.
Nothing gives someone the right to trademark a racist name for two reasons.
1. A racist name is not unique, we would have to allow trademarks on every word.
2. A trademark is not a right guaranteed in the constitution. It is a government provided monopoly provided in law with set limitations. It is designed to encourage business not racist slang.


great points I just wish people understood the nuance of things like this. Keep up the amazing work.


Jesus only American Indians get to decide what offends them dude. Polling, reports from the rez the three American Indian high schools named redskins all point to there bing cool with the name. Some elitiest have chosen to speak for them that as lead to the ruling by the FTMC wich will be over turned.


Only the ACLU canclaim that the owndership of the Washington team "chose" the Redskin name. That name was chosen before any of the current owners were even born. There is nothing wrong with the name Redskin and I wonder how the turds at the ACLU can use the word Black as reference to Negroes and not have their heads explode.

Thomas Pearce

As Co- Chairman of the American Indian Movement of Indiana and Kentucky I am sad to say I will never support the ACLU again. How many times to we have watch you defend the rights of hate groups before we realize that you don't defend People of Color you defend white people. As if the Redskins needed your help. You disgust me with this interpretation., The airwaves and the sports industry is something open to children and all who wish to participate, Hatred should not be on the TV on public television, SHAME ACLU SHAME!!!!


Did the ACLU ever take a position on the Redskin name or is that one more lie?


Who gets to decide, then? Or is the point that there should be no limit on disparaging terms as trademarks? I hope your brief was better reasoned than this blog post.


It's also interesting that redskin wasn't an offensive term when the team was formed.

Talos Law

A trademark is a property right, created by the government, which restricts (inherently) the speech of others. I appreciate that equality of all speech, including offensive speech, is an important value; however, to enforce a trademark is to limit the speech of others. I hope the ACLU reconsiders in future cases.

Hart Williams

With the astonishing amount of injustice and the almost continual attacks on individual liberties around the land, the decision by the ACLU to defend racist "assholes" who happen to be billionaires in a league of billionaires is an indefensible use of scarce ACLU resources.


Did you believe that the poor billionaires couldn't afford legal assistance?

For shame.


Stay Informed