U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: “Redskins” is derogatory and offensive

posted at 2:41 pm on January 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

The agency can’t stop the team from using the name but they can make it very, very costly for them to do so.

I’m tempted to cite this as proof of the influence that lefty media, which has seized on this issue as a cause celebre over the past year, has on government, but the truth is that this battle has been waging inside the PTO for decades.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected an application to trademark the name “Redskins Hog Rind,” writing that the term “Redskins” is “a derogatory slang term that refers to, and is considered offensive by, American Indians.”

The agency cited five definitions from online dictionaries – from The Oxford Dictionary to Yahoo – that labeled the word as offensive or disparaging. In addition the agency pointed to news articles about Native American challenges to the Redskins name, including the policy of the National Congress of American Indians, which officially refers to the team as the “R*dskins” or “R Word”…

Federal law prohibits trademarking any term that may be immoral, scandalous or may disparage another person. To determine what crosses the line, the agency looks at two questions: 1) the term’s likely meaning and use in the product’s context and 2) whether the phrase disparages a specific group of people.

The obligatory statement from Ray Halbritter, the team’s most high-profile Native American critic:

“The USPTO ruling sends a powerful message to Washington team owner Dan Snyder and the NFL that in the name of basic decency and respect they should immediately stop spending millions of dollars to promote the R-word,” said Halbritter. “This is a huge potential precedent-setter rooted in the painfully self-evident truth that the Change the Mascot campaign has been reiterating: The R-word is a dictionary defined slur designed to demean and dehumanize an entire group of people. The federal government was right to declare that taxpayers cannot and should not subsidize the promotion of that slur through lucrative patent protections.”

Here’s the text of the letter. Denying a guy a trademark for his pork rinds doesn’t mean that the football team’s trademark is automatically invalid, but it does lend momentum to the claim filed with the PTO last year seeking to have the team’s mark revoked on grounds that it’s offensive. You can imagine the toll that would take on their bottom line. Once the mark’s revoked, all of America will be free to make and sell its own Redskins merchandise without fear of being sued by the club. Great news for ‘Skins fans who are looking for cheap jerseys and sweatshirts, not so great for Dan Snyder. Does the name, or simple pride in not bowing to P.C. forces, mean so much to him that he’d forfeit the team’s merchandising revenue to keep it? (Spoiler: No.)

As I say, though, there’s a history here. For starters, per WaPo, this isn’t the first time a mark’s been denied on grounds that “Redskins” is offensive. It’s happened four times before. The pork rinds case is getting attention because it’s timely, not because it’s novel. The claim filed with the PTO last year to revoke the team’s trademark isn’t the first of its kind either. A similar claim was filed in 1992 — and proved victorious in 1999 when a three-judge panel declared the mark offensive. The ‘Skins appealed and won in federal district court in 2003, partly because the PTO hadn’t fully explained why “Redskins” was disparaging and partly because the plaintiffs had waited too long to challenge a mark that had been granted in the 1960s. That decision was appealed and the appellate court ruled that it was unfair to expect the plaintiffs, one of whom was only one year old when the ‘Skins trademark was granted in 1967, to have filed suit soon thereafter. On remand, the district court ruled again for the team on grounds that the youngest plaintiff had turned 18 several years before the trademark challenge was brought in 1992. If you’re truly offended, the reasoning went, you should have filed a claim as soon as you were legally able to, i.e. when you turned 18. Believe it or not, that’s an issue in the new PTO claim filed last year too. The new plaintiffs are Native Americans aged 18 to 24, and the Redskins have challenged the youngest on grounds that they waited until near the end of their 18th year to file rather than doing so at the very beginning. Hmmmm.

There’s one more X factor:

As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.

That raises an interesting question of when, exactly, “Redskins” became offensive. The team will insist that it isn’t offensive and that arguments that it is are chiefly a byproduct of the rise of political correctness over the past 20 years, after the trademarks were granted. The plaintiffs will argue that the term was always disparaging and offensive to Native Americans but was tolerated by the wider culture in less enlightened times. The secondary question is whether “Redskins” can be disparaging in one market context but not in another. If it’s offensive when used to sell pork rinds, why might it not be offensive when used to sell merchandise for a football team? Judging by the time frame of the last PTO lawsuit, we should have answers to these important questions sometime around, oh, 2030 or so. Which means it’s irrelevant, as the team will have long since changed its name by then.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Here we go again…

OmahaConservative on January 9, 2014 at 2:44 PM

At 3-13, they were this year.

Although I’m not sure about the “offensive” part. RGIII had a bad year.

Bitter Clinger on January 9, 2014 at 2:45 PM

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected an application to trademark the name “Redskins Hog Rind,” writing that the term “Redskins” is “a derogatory slang term that refers to, and is considered offensive by, American Indians.”

I consider the terms “liberal” and “Democrat” to be offensive. Any chance the PTO would reject an application with these terms as part of a trademark? Didn’t think so.

Bitter Clinger on January 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM

I find the term Washington derogatory and offensive.

Buttercup on January 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Good to see those native Americans are putting their cigarette and gambling money to good use. I mean it isn’t as if the reservations are filled with drunks and welfare recipients, right?

Happy Nomad on January 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM

Federal law prohibits trademarking any term that may be immoral, scandalous or may disparage another person.

So, I guess Barky is not going to be able to trademark “Obama” then.

NOMOBO on January 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM

If I was Snyder and forced to change the name, I’d take the team out of Washington. And not just a little out of Washington.

Cindy Munford on January 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Is Halbritter a real Indian or a Sears Indian like Fauxcahontas?

chewmeister on January 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Next up, Yankees deemed offensive to the South.

Buttercup on January 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

There will be a point when Dan Snyder says at a presser that he’s changing the team name. And moving the team to LA.

pt on January 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Not surprised the Dems would find a bureaucratic way to force the issue – par for the course with King Putt.

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

I find “Vikings” very offensive. Grandma came from Norway and I don’t appreciate the reference, that is a part of our past we’re not proud of.

Grandpa was Irish and I find “The Fighting Irish” promotes a negative stereotype and the logo demeaning.

29Victor on January 9, 2014 at 2:51 PM

I guess Pus.sy Riot is in trouble

faraway on January 9, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Leave the Crimson Hide alone.

Flange on January 9, 2014 at 2:51 PM

This is a nation of pu**ies.

M240H on January 9, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Federal law prohibits trademarking any term that may be immoral, scandalous or may disparage another person.

So, I guess Barky is not going to be able to trademark “Obama” then.

NOMOBO on January 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM

What about the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

I find the word “Colored” to be offensive to blacks and the exclusivity implied in the name offensive to non-blacks.

29Victor on January 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

There will be a point when Dan Snyder says at a presser that he’s changing the team name. And moving the team to LA.

pt on January 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

He should move them to Oklahoma.

Flange on January 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

writing that the term “Redskins” is “a derogatory slang term that refers to, and is considered offensive by, American Indians.”

According to the many articles I have read about this, they have not come up with but one Single questionable Native American that found the term offensive.

Johnnyreb on January 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

The R-word is a dictionary defined slur designed to demean and dehumanize an entire group of people.

So if I’m understanding this correctly the take-away from this is that if you have red skin you should be ashamed.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

I found the Cowboy’s defense very offensive….can we rid them, please.

hillsoftx on January 9, 2014 at 2:55 PM

So would PTO approve Washington Sunburns?

hillsoftx on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

My investments in redskin potatoes just took a hit.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

What a farce

gwelf on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Rather than the PTO be the guardian of what is and what isn’t offensive, wouldn’t it be easier to give the pork rinds guy his trademark and, if the name is that offensive, he will soon go out of business because he can’t sell his wares?

Of course, we can’t let the marketplace dictate such things. We have to have government.

Bitter Clinger on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Federal law prohibits trademarking any term that may be immoral, scandalous or may disparage another person.

Well, Goodbye to You, Scandal, goodbye to you….*snif*

29Victor on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

The government has spoken.

MoreLiberty on January 9, 2014 at 2:57 PM

My investments in redskin potatoes just took a hit.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Heh.

Bitter Clinger on January 9, 2014 at 2:58 PM

What!?! Our genius political pundits have failed to change hearts and minds?

Release the lawyers!

/liberals

gwelf on January 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM

I found the Cowboy’s defense very offensive….can we rid them, please.

hillsoftx on January 9, 2014 at 2:55 PM

Sure. Cowboy is “slur designed to demean and dehumanize an entire group of people.” It was used to demean Presidents Reagan and Bush & the people who agreed with them all the time.

29Victor on January 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM

The Washington Auburn Epidermis?

chewmeister on January 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM

If I was Snyder and forced to change the name, I’d take the team out of Washington. And not just a little out of Washington.

Cindy Munford on January 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Not me: I’d wait until the day before the season opener and fold the team; fire sale on any team assets to minimize the $$$ impact. And make sure every damn body understood why…

affenhauer on January 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM

So would PTO approve Washington Sunburns?

hillsoftx on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

How about Washington Redtapes..?

affenhauer on January 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Federal law prohibits trademarking any term that may be immoral, scandalous or may disparage another person.

Must be why The Washington Senators had to move to Texas and change their name.

29Victor on January 9, 2014 at 3:01 PM

At 3-13, they were this year.

Although I’m not sure about the “offensive” part. RGIII had a bad year.

Bitter Clinger on January 9, 2014 at 2:45 PM

Basically, their name was the only offensive feature of their entire season. At least to some people. To the rest of us, the fact that they sucked so badly is plenty offensive.

nukemhill on January 9, 2014 at 3:01 PM

So if I’m understanding this correctly the take-away from this is that if you have red skin you should be ashamed.

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Yup.

And that football teams apparently pick names for their teams aimed at mocking people instead of portraying themselves as masculine, powerful and appealing.

gwelf on January 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Since when is PC their job?

Plus, the Indians don’t think so.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM

He should move them to Oklahoma.

Flange on January 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Build a new stadium in the “promise zone” (with affiliated casino next door) and change the name to the Oklahoma Choctaws.

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Judging by the time frame of the last PTO lawsuit, we should have answers to these important questions sometime around, oh, 2030 or so. Which means it’s irrelevant, as the team will have long since changed its name by then.

If Snyder is anywhere near as stubborn as I am, the name Redskins would stick even if the trademark protection were removed.

I might change the logo to a middle finger, though.

DRayRaven on January 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM

I’m damned offended by Zesta & Nabisco using the racist term cracker and demand that Patent & Trademark rescind their patent…

OmahaConservative on January 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM

In addition the agency pointed to news articles about Native American challenges to the Redskins name, including the policy of the National Congress of American Indians

Waitaminit. I thought “Indians” was an offensive term.

29Victor on January 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM

My investments in redskin potatoes just took a hit.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Shouldn’t you be more concerned that the Indians are getting rid of Chief Wahoo.

RickB on January 9, 2014 at 3:04 PM

It’s also highly offensive that all those black players are taking positions away from hispanic and native americans. We need racial equality now.

gwelf on January 9, 2014 at 3:04 PM

How about Washington Redtapes..?

affenhauer on January 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Heh – Well done, but I find redtape offensive too.

tommer74 on January 9, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Not me: I’d wait until the day before the season opener and fold the team; fire sale on any team assets to minimize the $$$ impact. And make sure every damn body understood why…

affenhauer on January 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Trouble with that is that 90% of the value of team is in the NFL franchise concession and the team goodwill. He’d be cutting off his nose to spite his face.

tommyboy on January 9, 2014 at 3:04 PM

We could start a list of “any term that may be immoral, scandalous or may disparage another person.” On Twitter. My first entry would be “Butthole Surfers.”

29Victor on January 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM

Dan Snyder will never change the team’s name. And he has enough money to tell everyone to GFY.

rockmom on January 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM

Should change it to the Washington Politically Correct Douchebags

I’d buy that shirt.

Spade on January 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Once the mark’s revoked, all of America will be free to make and sell its own Redskins merchandise without fear of being sued by the club. Great news for ‘Skins fans who are looking for cheap jerseys and sweatshirts, not so great for Dan Snyder. Does the name, or simple pride in not bowing to P.C. forces, mean so much to him that he’d forfeit the team’s merchandising revenue to keep it? (Spoiler: No.)

Wait a minute. If the name is so offensive, who is going to buy all that stuff and wear it?

rockmom on January 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Ray Halbritter, the team’s most high-profile Native American critic:

Who isn’t even a member of the tribe he represents…

Red Cloud on January 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM

I’m damned offended by Zesta & Nabisco using the racist term cracker and demand that Patent & Trademark rescind their patent…

OmahaConservative on January 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Yeah – and what about Spic & Span..?

affenhauer on January 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Curious…has anyone successfully trademarked anything with “Teabaggers” or something along those lines?

nextgen_repub on January 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Since most of the value in the trademark is in merchandising (shirts, etc) the NFL itself would take just as big a hit as Snyder if the trademark rights were lost.

tommyboy on January 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM

The pork rinds case is getting attention because it’s timely, not because it’s novel.

I’m surprised that the Tolerant Leftists haven’t dragged George H.W. Bush’s name into this. Pork rinds are his favorite snack.

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Hey Dan….Move your team to Munich or Berlin.

1) The NFL is going to open a franchise there anyway

2) Germans don’t give a damn about being offended.

Watch the tune change when all that DC and Maryland income from the Redskins looks like it’ll be lost.

Oh wait….is my post considered hate speech? Ed/AllahP….when will the HA filter be updated to exclude this offensive word?

BobMbx on January 9, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Brownies s/b banned.

Schadenfreude on January 9, 2014 at 3:11 PM

My investments in redskin potatoes just took a hit.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

wiki

At one protest “Native Americans handed the fans redskin potatoes as they entered a Redskins game, suggesting that if the team will not change their name altogether, then they should at least change their mascot to the potato.”

This happened in the late 1980s.

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2014 at 3:11 PM

AP – Why is the comment I’m trying to post not showing up? There are no offensive words in it.

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Wait a minute. If the name is so offensive, who is going to buy all that stuff and wear it?

rockmom on January 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Yeah, what exactly is the government protecting is from.

gwelf on January 9, 2014 at 3:12 PM

How do the Dems feel about the infamous Tomahawk Chop that was on display at the BCS Championship Game and every Atlanta Braves home game?

Want to ban something, ban that.

Chopping off someone’s scalp isn’t exactly PC.

fogw on January 9, 2014 at 3:12 PM

I assume the NAACP and many other organizations will be deemed offensive as well?

mouell on January 9, 2014 at 3:14 PM

In addition the agency pointed to news articles about Native American challenges to the Redskins name, including the policy of the National Congress of American Indians

Waitaminit. I thought “Indians” was an offensive term.

29Victor on January 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM

It’s only offensive when they want it to be.

Bitter Clinger on January 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Offensive:

http://www.certifiedwhiteboy.com/

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Offensive:

http://www.marysgonecrackers.com/

Making fun of crazy white people is just plain wrong.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Ray Halbritter, the team’s most high-profile Native American critic:
Who isn’t even a member of the tribe he represents…
Red Cloud on January 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Ray had several prominent recipes in my latest Native American cookbook do that right there makes him a Bona Fide member of the tribe.

- Elizabeth Warren.

turfmann on January 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM

If I hear White Death ONE MORE TIME.
/

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM

So would PTO approve Washington Sunburns?

hillsoftx on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

How about Washington Redtapes..?

affenhauer on January 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Washington Burgandyskins?

Afterall, their team coloras are burgandy and gold.

Bitter Clinger on January 9, 2014 at 3:18 PM

*colors

Bitter Clinger on January 9, 2014 at 3:19 PM

How do the Dems feel about the infamous Tomahawk Chop that was on display at the BCS Championship Game and every Atlanta Braves home game?

Want to ban something, ban that.

Chopping off someone’s scalp isn’t exactly PC.

fogw on January 9, 2014 at 3:12 PM

They’re good with it.

Flange on January 9, 2014 at 3:20 PM

If I was Snyder and forced to change the name, I’d take the team out of Washington. And not just a little out of Washington.

Cindy Munford on January 9, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Took the words out of my mouth. He should pick a state without a football team and see about moving there.

Doomberg on January 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM

So would PTO approve Washington Sunburns?

hillsoftx on January 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

They could use a logo of an indian looking man sticking his tongue out.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Don’t NFL teams have to share their earnings from selling merchandise?

I thought that was a complaint by Jerry Jones since much more merchandise with the Cowboy logo is sold than, say, the Lions. But the Lions get equal share of the sales.

SteveMG on January 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM

He should move them to Oklahoma.

Flange on January 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Into the new promise zone.
Change the name to the Oklahoma Choctaws.

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Soon: The Washington Radskins

portlandon on January 9, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Washington Marxists, anyone?

RedNewEnglander on January 9, 2014 at 3:22 PM

The Washington Cracka’s, is that an offensive team name? Seems to me it (Cracka) gets used alot,and it seems to be OK in places, but no matter to the PC crowd that it offends me.

Sabercat2 on January 9, 2014 at 3:22 PM

I’m surprised Ed and Bishop haven’t screaming about this Steeler fan all day.

RickB on January 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Someone needs to get going on the Ritz & Saltine “CRACKERS” case ASAP

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 9, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Apparently the commonly used word for a gambling facility is now a bad word according to HA, at least whenever I use it.

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Change the name to the Oklahoma Choctaws.

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 3:22 PM

That’s what I was thinking. Plus, football is huge there. If Green Bay can support a team, Oklahoma can too.

Flange on January 9, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Federal law prohibits trademarking any term that may be immoral, scandalous or may disparage another person. To determine what crosses the line, the agency looks at two questions: 1) the term’s likely meaning and use in the product’s context and 2) whether the phrase disparages a specific group of people.

doesn’t this violate some kind of free speech right? seems like “if we disagree with it, we can prohibit trademarking it.” it doesn’t sound fair to me.

Sachiko on January 9, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that the PTO would such a surprising ruling given King Obozo’s sentiments on this. I mean, it’s not like Barky’s admin has ever targeted someone or some group for persecution or anything like that.

smfic on January 9, 2014 at 3:33 PM

If they want to be so petty as to this ridiculous cause, couldn’t they say that from this day forward nothing could be named a Redskin instead of trying to reinvent a franchise that’s been around since 1932 for crying out loud?

scalleywag on January 9, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Guess they’ll be changing the name of the PUSSY cat theater any day now

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 9, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Interestingly enough, the team got the nickname “Redskins” back before WWII, in honor of their coach, the legendary “Lone Star” Dietz, who was thought and claimed to be part Indian. His heritage has since been questioned.

So there are a lot of coincidences here. Fake Indians from Boston go to Washington and offend people. It could be the football team, or Elizabeth Warren.

Adjoran on January 9, 2014 at 3:37 PM

That’s what I was thinking. Plus, football is huge there. If Green Bay can support a team, Oklahoma can too.

Flange on January 9, 2014 at 3:29 PM

And they could make even more money with a gambling facility located near the stadium….

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Keep the name.

Change the mascot.

Make it a Scandi girl with a sunburn.

Fixed.

Meremortal on January 9, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Why not the Washington ‘skins, with the apostrophe? What’s offensive about that?

HiJack on January 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Oh hell, let’s just go with Washington Smallpox Blankets.

Meremortal on January 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Oh really now…tell me this didn’t come down from the White House.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM

This is a nation of pu**ies.

M240H on January 9, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Or cowards as our very own AG put it.

ouldbollix on January 9, 2014 at 3:44 PM

The federal government is derogatory and offensive. Let’s call it even then!

cajunpatriot on January 9, 2014 at 3:47 PM

WTF…. no one is gonna remind me how lucky I am to live in the FREEST COUNTRY EVAH

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I used to think politicians were thieves but have come to realize they are just plain crooks…… thieves take what doesn’t belong to them….. Americans give their liberty & freedom away everyday.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Geronimo is rolling over in his grave at how his indian people are soooo upset at a word.
Not exactly the kind of warriors he was used to at little big horn.

ouldbollix on January 9, 2014 at 3:50 PM

There will be a point when Dan Snyder says at a presser that he’s changing the team name. And moving the team to LA.

pt on January 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Moving the team and changing the team name to the “Los Angeles Moistbacks” just doesn’t have the same panache.

Zorg on January 9, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Move the team.

Build a stadium near an Indian casino.

Indian complaints will cease immediately.

Carnac on January 9, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Carnac on January 9, 2014 at 3:52 PM

How did you get that post through?
EVERY post I’ve tried that included the C word has been moderated out.

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM

Next up, Yankees deemed offensive to the South.

Buttercup on January 9, 2014 at 2:50 PM

The South is probably offensive to most Yankees. Its a wash.

hawkeye54 on January 9, 2014 at 4:04 PM

I find “Washington” offensive and derogatory.

COgirl on January 9, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Moving the team and changing the team name to the “Los Angeles Moistbacks” just doesn’t have the same panache.

Move ‘em to Sacramento and rename the team the “Moonbeams”

hawkeye54 on January 9, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2