ACLU Refuse To Defend “White Pride”
Posted on July 21, 2006
I am in no way racist. I will not be prejudiced as to what this guy’s motivations were. For all I know they could have been racially motivated or pure. That isn’t the point. The point is the ACLU’s double standard. They say that ALL speech should be defended no matter how offensive it is. This was an exception to their rule obviously.
Frizzen Sparks has a post up that is sure to spark debate. I advise everyone to read this carefully and not jump to any premature conclusions before making up their mind on it. This is the kind of thing that many civil libertarians become divided on with the ACLU. The ACLU proudly claim that they will defend all speech, no matter how offensive it is, and regardless of whether they agree or disagree with it. As we know, they defend the speech of NAMBLA to plan out how to rape little boys. They say they don’t agree with their speech, but that they should have the right to speak this perverted and sickening kind of speech. They have defended Fred Phelp’s hate cult to go to military funerals with signs that say “God hates Gays” and “Thank God For Dead Soilders.” This kind of speech makes many of us very angry and offended, but the ACLU defends these particular forms of hate speech.
It really makes no sense to me why the ACLU would have refused this especially on the grounds in which they did. After all, they are always bragging about how they defended Nazis to march through Jewish neighborhoods.
Here is a little background on what we are talking about.
If you are looking for more evidence that the United States government is biased against white people, you can add their decision in my trademark case. In February, 2004, I applied for a trademark on the words “White Pride Country Wide.” I did it as an exercise against political correctness. I intentionally did not choose “white power,” “white supremacy” or “the white race” because of the negative connotations of those terms. Trademarks can be denied to offensive phrases.
When I later searched United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) records, I found that “Black Power,” “Black Supremacy,” and “La Raza” (Spanish for “The Race”) had all been approved by the USPTO and been found not to be offensive. The USPTO had also approved and registered “The Black Panther Party” and “Burn, Baby, Burn,” the party’s slogan. The Black Panthers had assassinated white police officers but neither term was found to be offensive or immoral. To me, “white pride” was a non-offensive, positive term, or at least I thought so.On December 23, 2004, I received my Christmas present from the USPTO. In an Office Action prepared by Barbara Rutland, it denied my trademark, ruling that the “white pride” part of my request was “offensive,” “immoral,” and “scandalous.” Here are her very words:
“Section 2(a) Refusal
“Registration is refused because the proposed mark consists of or comprises immoral or scandalous matter. Trademark Act Section 2(a) U.S.C. 1052(a); TMEP 1203.01. According to the attached evidence from a Lexis/Nexis database and a search of the Internet using the search engine www.google.com, the “WHITE PRIDE” element of the proposed mark is considered offensive and therefore scandalous.”
Frizzen Sparks has a lot more information on this. Make sure to follow this link to read about how the man appealed this, and a lot of great commentary. I don’t know why the guy took this as far as he did. Whether this was an important issue for him, or if he was just trying to make a point I am not sure. However, the fact remains that whether you agree with him or not on the issue, shouldn’t he have the same rights as any? If the blacks can have “Black Pride” why can’t someone express “White Pride”? I’m really not interested in an answer to that question. I’m sure we could split hairs all day on that one. What I am interested in is why the ACLU of all organizations refused to help this guy.
ACLU denies assistance and adds insult
My next step was to seek outside help from the Minnesota branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I sent a brief letter to the ACLU-MN summarizing my case and asking if they were interested. They initially said they were willing to review the case, so I sent them pages of documentation. I thought I might have a chance since the ACLU prides itself on defending the rights of the little guy. I am white, male, heterosexual, married, employed, native born, English speaking, Christian-valued, have no criminal record, and am a retired law enforcement officer. I could be the perfect “token” case outside their mainstream clientele, or at least I thought so.In March 2005, the ACLU not only turned my case down but took the opportunity to slam white people and Christians. Renee Hamilton, legal assistant for the ACLU-MN, wrote:
“Thus, when the PTO examined Moritz’s mark, their rejection of his mark was reasonable given that such a slogan has just but one meaning i.e. superiority of what he term (sic) ‘the white race’ over all other races and their brand of Christianity over the other religions.”
I find it especially interesting that one of the ACLU’s reasons for turning down the case was “superiority of their brand of Christianity over the other religions”. I fail to see where religion enters into the phrase “White pride country wide”. I guess you have to be working for an organization dedicated to pushing christianity out of public life to “get it” or something.
Yeah, I don’t get it either. I’m sure the politically correct can see nothing in this man’s motivation other than racism, but even if it was that was his motivation even I would expect the ACLU to defend it. One thing is for sure. Political correctness in this country has gotten out of control. If we are truly going to have equal rights in this country then lets have equal rights. Frizzen Sparks expresses the degree that political correctness on these kinds of issues have gotten to when they say, “Even “conservative” legal groups won’t touch this with a ten foot pole.”
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News
Trackback URL
Comments
17 Responses to “ACLU Refuse To Defend “White Pride””
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
They didn’t take the case cuz its a loser. The PTO is applying trademark law correctly.
gfactor, what in the world are you talking about?!? Did you even read the article?
“Did you even read the article?”
I did. The PTO is applying trademark law correctly. A lawsuit won’t change that.
I once thought of doing something similar, just for the sake of political correctness.
But in my case it would have just been me being a rabble rouser.
While I think that any slogan concerning Race is crazy, I gotta say I agree with you Jay.
The ACLU is two-faced on this issue of freedom of speech.
“The ACLU is two-faced on this issue of freedom of speech. ”
The guy is free to have a trademark. He just won’t get the benefits of registration
How is it that Blacks can have “Pride” in being Black, yet Whites are called racist for being proud of being born white?
Can you see the disconnect here?
“Black Pride”, according to some (the left and PC minded groups) is interpreted as pride in the accomplishments of ones race, while “White Pride” is ALWAYS interpreted as “My race and everything I believe is better than yours.”
gfactor, how did they rule correctly by allowing a slogan of “Black Supremacy” but not “white pride”?
“How is it that Blacks can have “Pride” in being Black, yet Whites are called racist for being proud of being born white?”
Because the slogan ‘white pride’ is associated with hate groups. Thats how trademark law works — not on your intent, but with the association of the words.
“gfactor, how did they rule correctly by allowing a slogan of “Black Supremacy” but not “white pride”?”
Probably because black supremacy does not bring up associations with neo-nazi skinheads.
No, it would be associated with militant black hate groups.
Gfactor,
Racism and bigotry is racism and bigotry no matter what the skin color.
Thank you for so nicely pointing out the hypocrisy in this.
“Racism and bigotry is racism and bigotry no matter what the skin color.”
The problem is popular perception isn’t logical like equal protection law. People know white power is something associated with neo nazi skinheads, while black power is more generic.
Thats a bunch of B.S. gfactor.
The phrase wasn’t “white power” anyway. Did you really read this?
The fact is that by perpetuating the stereo types, and using the concepts out of their intended context, you are perptuating the racism.
Time for people to eith get truly diverse, or become so generic and bland that we are a sterile society.
I feel no particular need to be apologetic simply because I am descendent from European immigrants, and I resent the implications that a “person of color” has more right and opportunity to celebrate their heritage then I do.
“The phrase wasn’t “white power” anyway. Did you really read this? ”
White pride works the same way too. Anyway, you’d have a hard time overcoming the PTO’s decision on review due to the deference given to administrative action. Like I said, the case is a loser.
I think the Conservative legal groups are right to not touch this with even a 20 foot pole, because they would not touch a “Black Pride” case with a 20 foot pole either. They are right to not touch either. Because respectable Conservative groups show some morality and fairness in the cases they select, unlike the Godless ACLU.
It is the ACLU that is being the usual hypocritical organization that it is. They would have represented a “Black Pride” case in a heartbeat and have even represented cross burners before the US Supreme Court, where Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas had their heads for breakfast.
So it’s not a problem that a Conservative group turned this case down, because we all hope Conservative groups don’t play into the racial games played by groups like the ACLU.
Now given those other racial pride statements were approved, the “White Pride” slogan should have been approved also, so long as it was for a product similar to what other slogans were approved for. Adversity.net looked up some of the approved slogans and they were for things like food and hair products. I think a Jewish company in the hair care business might hold one of the “African Pride” trademarks. And given South Korean’s own most of the Black hair care market I would not be surprised if a Korean has one of them too.
So the U.S. PTO should have approved “White Pride Country Wide” for something similar, like White bread or White rice
.