The NFL is trying to expand their sport and brand into other markets. To accomplish that, teams have been playing games in Wembley Stadium in London.
This year, the Washington Redskins will face the Cincinnati Bengals on October 30, 2016.
The Redskins team coming to London doesn’t sit well with some members of Parliament.
Two British lawmakers have written to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to complain about the nickname of the Washington Redskins ahead of the team’s visit to London next season.
Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin, who are members of the Labour Party, wrote in a letter dated Feb. 2 that the NFL ‘should consider changing the name of the Washington franchise or, at a minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur.’
Many people have said this shows the intolerance and stupidity of the MP’s who think the NFL has to bow to their wishes.
Frankly, the NFL doesn’t have to bow to the wishes of the MP’s but they do have to abide by the law of the country in which they are playing.
The NFL is going to literally ship tons of equipment, signage, and merchandise with the Redskin’s name and logo on it. If, and that is a huge “if,” the name and logo are illegal under English law, the NFL is out of luck. They can either change the team going to Wembley, change the venue (Germany has indicated an interest in hosting an NFL game) or cancel the game.
What people in the US and the NFL should not do is demand that the English abide by our laws here in the US. In 2014, without a single complaint on file against the name, the US Patent Office canceled the trademark registration on the name “Washington Redskins,” which meant that the team lost protection of its trademarks and logos. It also meant that every Tom, Dick and Harry could make Redskins clothing, souvenirs and memorabilia without any fear of the Redskins suing to protect their trademark. (more…)
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have the same attitude when it comes to free speech and the First Amendment: they hate it.
Donald Trump has a history of suing people who say things about him with which he disagrees. He sued biographer Tim O’Brien based on Trump’s claim that O’Brien incorrectly stated Trump’s net worth. He threatened to sue the company who employed a market analyst who predicted Trump’s Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City would fail. He has made threats concerning the owners of the Chicago Cubs who have chosen to support other candidates. He sued a architecture critic of the Chicago Tribune who correctly predicted that Trump would never build the highest building in the US because of structural and economic issues. The critic was right, but that didn’t stop Trump from suing the Tribune and the critic to shut him up.
This past Friday, Trump said he would change the law and by extension the First Amendment on articles the press writes.
“One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” Trump said.
Under current law, largely determined at the state instead of federal level, public persons, such as politicians, can win a suit against a media organization only if the person can prove that the publication published information with actual malice, knowing it to be wholly incorrect, as well as in cases of reckless disregard. The case that set this precedent — New York Times Co. v. Sullivan — was decided by the Supreme Court in 1964.
“You see, with me, they’re not protected, because I’m not like other people but I’m not taking money. I’m not taking their money,” Trump said on Friday. “We’re going to open up libel laws, and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”
A “hit piece” is probably defined by Trump as “one that does not acknowledge his greatness.” (At least in his mind.)
A team of scientists announced on Thursday that they had heard and recorded the sound of two black holes colliding a billion light-years away, a fleeting chirp that fulfilled the last prediction of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
That faint rising tone, physicists say, is the first direct evidence of gravitational waves, the ripples in the fabric of space-time that Einstein predicted a century ago. (Listen to it here.) It completes his vision of a universe in which space and time are interwoven and dynamic, able to stretch, shrink and jiggle. And it is a ringing confirmation of the nature of black holes, the bottomless gravitational pits from which not even light can escape, which were the most foreboding (and unwelcome) part of his theory.
More generally, it means that a century of innovation, testing, questioning and plain hard work after Einstein imagined it on paper, scientists have finally tapped into the deepest register of physical reality, where the weirdest and wildest implications of Einstein’s universe become manifest.
If you don’t understand what this all means and what the fuss is, scientist Brian Greene stopped by the Late Show to explain the meaning, and how gravitational waves were discovered. Greene does an excellent job of taken a complex scientific principle and making it understandable for the masses.
This election season there’s a lot of talk about corruption, about politicians being “bought and sold”, and about “crony capitalism”. What do those terms mean? Why should we care? Is there a way to reduce corruption and restore our trust in government? Author Jay Cost, staff writer at The Weekly Standard, answers these questions and proposes a solution that every society could benefit from.
Web User is a real magazine published in the UK which focuses on computers and the internets. Their Facebook page can be found here.) We saw an ad for the magazine the other day and just had to laugh. (And then we made our own modification to it.)
The original is below the fold.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. spy agencies have told Congress that Hillary Clinton’s home computer server contained some emails that should have been treated as “top secret” because their wording matched sections of some of the government’s most highly classified documents, four sources familiar with the agency reports said.
The two reports are the first formal declarations by U.S. spy agencies detailing how they believe Clinton violated government rules when highly classified information in at least 22 email messages passed through her unsecured home server.
The “Taurus Judge®” is so named because of the number of judges who carry it into the courtroom for their protection. Capable of chambering both .410 2-1/2″ shotshell and .45 Colt Ammunition, this amazing combo gun is ideal for short distances – where most altercations occur, or longer distances with the .45 Colt ammo. We have finely tuned the rifling to spread the shot pattern at close quarters or to guide the .45 cal. bullet to the target. Fully customized with fixed rear sights, fiber optic front sights and Taurus Ribber Grips®, the “Taurus Judge” is one decision-maker that lays down the law.
As the description says, the handgun can fire .45 caliber bullets as well a .410 caliber shotgun shells (both solid and so called “buck shot.”
There is no doubt that The Judge is an impressive weapon.
If you are a law abiding citizen and can meet the criteria for carrying such an weapon, we believe you should be able to own it. We believe that if you meet the criteria to carry it on the streets, you should be able to do so. We also believe that a business owner should make provisions for you to carry the weapon onto the property, and also not allow it to be on other parts of the property.
(This allows for a person who is gotten the weapon for self protection from some sort of abuse, or a person who has to travel through bad areas to still have the weapon within reach. Thus, people should be able to keep the weapon locked and secure in a car, but be prohibited from carrying it within the building / work areas of private property.)
A business owner in Georgia has gone 180 degrees from banning weapons on his property – he is requiring employees to be certified to own the gun and be trained in its use. He’ll even buy and supply the gun, but when you are at work, you must have it on your person or within arm’s reach. (more…)
Former California State Senator Leyland Yee was sentenced on Wednesday to 5 years in jail for racketeering, trafficking in illegal weapons, and money laundering.
It isn’t enough.
Yee was notable for his attempts to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The irony is not lost on us that a man who campaigned and promised to restrict guns was convicted of a plot to traffic in illegal weapons.
We first met up with Yee back in 2011 when a law he had written and sponsored was deemed un-Constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. The law made it illegal for people under the age of 18 to rent or buy some video games (even with parental consent.) A group of merchants and video game manufacturers banded together to sue the State of California saying the law was an attack on the First Amendment. Quoting the decision in the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association:
“in which the range of options available
to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted” in a manner that “[a] reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors,” that is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors,” and that “causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”
California lost at every level – the Federal District Court, the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court. The 7-2 decision handed down by the Supreme Court was written by Judge Scalia, which somehow seems appropriate given his recent passing.
After getting slapped down at every level, Yee’s office issued a statement saying:
“Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children,” said the law’s author, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco). “As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids’ mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”
While his public persona made statements on how awful guns were in the hands of law abiding citizens, how terrible it was to have fictional images of people being shot, and how corporations were motivated by profit in selling video games, it was Yee who decided to make money by looking to illegally sell real guns in the community where the profit in his pockets would cause actual damage – not fictional damage – to the people he was elected to represent.
Five years is not enough for this guy. It just isn’t. (more…)
A US Judge has ruled that discovery may go forward in a lawsuit looking at the emails and servers of Hillary Clinton.
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington came in a lawsuit over public records brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, regarding its May 2013 request for information about the employment arrangement of Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.
The basis of the lawsuit is that documents have shown the State Department knew about Clinton’s unsecured and personal email server and did nothing about it. The servers are clearly illegal and Judicial Watch made the claim that the servers were established to allow Clinton and the State Department to violate Freedom of Information laws. After all, the in response to any FOIA request, the State Department could simply say “we don’t have any record of that.”
“There has been a constant drip, drip, drip of declarations. When does it stop?” Sullivan said, “This case is about the public’s right to know.”
In granting Judicial Watch’s request, Sullivan said that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy created “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’ ” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined.
Judicial Watch, for its part, was justifiably happy with the outcome of their motion to the court: (more…)