The Washington Redskins have found an ally in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), albeit a reluctant one. ACLU Staff Attorney Esha Bhandari wrote a blog on the ACLU’s official website, and boy was it contradictory. The tone can be interpreted as indignant at the very least, if not outright hostile. I mean just look at her headline: 'You're Not Wrong, You're Just an A**hole.'
Read here as she her message proves somewhat bi-polar:
“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 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.”
Bhandari also attempts to pick a fight with the Trademark Office using colorful examples:
“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.”
So, while the ACLU is offended by the team's choice for it's name, it defends the team's right to choose whatever name they please.