After a win over the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday, San Francisco 49ers defensive end Nick Bosa interrupted several teammates' postgame interview with NBC's Melissa Stark to point each index fingers on the front of his white baseball cap. The words “Make America Great Again” were sewn in capital gold letters.

Presumably the goal was to indicate support for former President Donald Trump, who used the slogan as a campaign slogan. He won re-election in 2016, lost re-election in 2020 and took on the embassy again this 12 months in his bid for a second term.

Nick Bosa crashed the SNF postgame interview wearing a MAGA hat pic.twitter.com/Rj0T0XpcWB

— NFL Memes (@NFL_Memes) October 28, 2024

Bosa has the proper to support anyone he chooses. As the saying goes: It's a free country. But the depiction – and the background – were strange considering the NFL has gone to great lengths over the past eight years to forestall players from making political statements at games.

In 2018, two years after Colin Kaepernick first protested police brutality against Black and brown people by silently kneeling throughout the national anthem, the league modified its pregame policy. In a vote that included 30 votes in favor and two abstentions, the owners required players to face during “The Star-Spangled Banner” or remain within the locker room until the tip.

The vote and news that players may very well be fined or suspended for noncompliance prompted immediate complaints from the NFL Players Association in addition to the league and union finally agreed to a standstill This prevented the brand new regulation from coming into force.

Still, it was a surprising vote by the owners, not only since the protests had all but died down and only a handful of players were kneeling, but in addition because several owners told me the night before the vote that there was no reason to reignite the controversy .

When the change was approved, I asked Packers CEO Mark Murphy about it.

“We can’t let Trump weaponize our league,” he told me.

Trump was particularly critical of the demonstrators and even went to date calling them “sons of bitches”. and demand the termination of their contracts. Not to say, Kaepernick selected his ultimate type of protest on the recommendation of former Green Beret Nate Boyer, who told him Getting in your knees could be more respectful than sitting throughout the anthem.

Many people couldn't consider the message due to the messenger. I hope Bosa doesn't make the identical mistake. His actions are actions. His personal beliefs are personal beliefs. But if the NFL's goal is to maintain political speech off its fields, then Bosa should face some type of discipline.

The The NFL's uniform rules state that players may be fined greater than $11,000 for wearing unauthorized logos or trademarks, which will surely cover up a campaign slogan.

Failure to take any motion would indicate the existence of a double standard and lift questions on whether the league feels more comfortable with a white player using its national highlight to support a presidential candidate than with Black players demonstrating against systemic racism .

The league didn’t reply to emails and text messages looking for comment.

As for Bosa, I might have more respect for him if he gave up ten feet in his beliefs. During his meeting with the media after the sport, he literally modified his hat and refused to discuss his demonstration.

“I won’t talk about it too much,” he said, “but I think it’s an important time.”

It is just not the primary time that Bosa has caused a stir together with his personal beliefs. Before he was drafted, he recurrently praised Trump, calling him and Ronald Reagan GOATs (the best of all time). In 2016 he has called Kaepernick “a clown.” He deleted his social media accounts leading as much as the 2019 draft because they contained posts that may very well be construed as insensitive or offensive. San Francisco general manager John Lynch specifically asked him about several posts before the draft, including one he “liked” that contained homophobic and racist hashtags.

He appeared remorseful at his post-draft press conferenceHe said: “I'm sorry if I hurt anyone. I definitely didn't intend that. I think being here (San Francisco) is even better for me as a person because I don't think there's a place or a city that you could really be in that would allow you so much growth like this. I will be surrounded by all kinds of people and grow as a person. I'll be alone. I will grow up, I will learn a lot of new things. It’s exciting.”

It sounded good, but now it looks like he was acting for the camera.

However, my problem, for lack of a greater word, is just not with Bosa. He is who we thought he was. He's not the one player supporting Trump. Tom Brady, the NFL's golden boy for much of his profession, conducted interviews together with his Trump hat clearly visible in his locker before the 2016 election. Trump and Brady each mentioned their friendship, and Brady said a Trump win would mean “a putting green on the White House lawn.”

The concern is whether or not the NFL may very well be shown to have double standards relating to players' political statements. Kaepernick gets rejected for his fight for social justice, and Bosa gets what? Ignored by the league and applauded by far-right supporters who otherwise demand that athletes, especially black athletes, stay in sports?

If the NFL decides to punish Bosa, it might likely announce its decision during Saturday's meeting his regular cycle for on-field fines.

On the opposite hand, double standards are commonplace within the country's hottest and powerful league. Commissioner Roger Goodell is thought for being tough on players and lenient on owners. Michael Bidwill (Arizona Cardinals), Robert Kraft (New England Patriots), Jimmy Haslam (Cleveland Browns) and Woody Johnson (New York Jets) have all engaged in conduct that appears to violate the league's code of conduct – which is designed to require owners and executives to achieve this higher standard. However, none of them were publicly punished by the commissioner.

I'm not holding my breath for any motion to be taken against Bosa. The writing is on the wall and is written in black and white.

When is a brand too scandalous? trademark?

This is an issue for the Supreme Court will determine soon in a case that tests the constitutional limits of free speech.

I attended the April 15 hearing where attorneys represented streetwear clothing label FUCT argued the corporate had a right to register its brand as a trademark, which helps protect it from imitators. The United States Patent and Trademark Office had rejected it on the grounds that FUCT is “immoral” and “scandalous”.

As a Trademark attorney and scholarI consider it’s time for the US to stop imposing an unworkable moral standard in trademark law – because it does in lots of other areas of law. Here's why.

An outlaw ethos

It's perhaps fitting that this case comes from a streetwear label known for pushing boundaries.

While it's common nowadays for clothing brands to adopt a provocative ethos and image, FUCT founder Erik Brunetti was one Pioneer of surprising streetwear fashion When He founded the corporate in 1990. The name was intended to embody the corporate's outlaw image – a company logo with anti-authoritarian pronunciation and a subversive message.

A preferred style was prints of the brand name within the font of the Ford logo found on T-shirts And Hats. The brand quickly became a cultural icon, with gear worn by skateboarders, punk rockers and even others Members of the band Nirvana.

As the label's popularity grew, counterfeit FUCT goods emerged. In order to guard its brand more effectively worldwide, Brunetti applied for registration it with the US Patent and Trademark Office in 2011.

Trademark Registration brings significant benefits, including nationwide protection against confusingly similar products, increased financial damages in litigation, and priority for foreign filings. It also allows U.S. customs officials to stop counterfeit goods from entering the border.

In rejecting Brunetti's application, the examiners argued that he had violated a provision in trademark law that’s greater than a century old.

“insult to conscience”

The ban on registering immoral and scandalous trademarks has been in place since Congress passed the Trademark Act of 1905. It states that any mark that “consists of or contains immoral or scandalous content” shall be rejected.

Scandalous today is defined as “shocking to the sense of decency, offensive to conscience or moral feelings, or calling for condemnation.”

Me and other scientists I've been questioning the wisdom of this for a very long time to have the Trademark Office because the arbiter of a collective and ever-evolving moral standard. That's due to brands fulfill a beneficial function available in the market by identifying the source of a great or service, helping consumers trust where something they’re buying comes from and stopping deception.

What matters is the standard of the source – not the moral quality.

And since the ban affects registration but not usage, I figured this out it’s ineffective to maintain offensive brands out of the market. Furthermore, decisions based on this provision are completely inconsistent.

If FCUK is OK, why not FUCT?

While the US has moved away From regulating morality in other areas akin to broadcasting – and in other types of mental property akin to copyrights and patents – the federal government continues to achieve this in terms of grants beneficial legal rights through trademark registration.

The most important evidence examiners use to make a decision whether to reject a grade on these grounds is the dictionary. If a dictionary states that a term is “vulgar,” that’s sufficient evidence to reject a trademark.

Brand examiners evaluate the meaning of a brand within the context of the present mind-set. For example in 1938 Trademark office rejected a request to guard Madonna as a wine trademark on the grounds that the word is religious in nature. Half a century later, the office apparently not had an issue granting such trademarks it approved one for Madonna rosé wine.

Because perceptions of what’s and isn't scandalous are continually changing, it's difficult for the trademark office to maintain up. And brands which might be considered scandalous or immoral to at least one reviewer could also be acceptable to a different reviewer.

This results in trademark office records are stuffed with inconsistencies. In recent years, examiner have approved trademarks Words like “whore,” “slut,” “penis,” and “stoner” are included, while others using the identical terms are rejected.

And the office has even approved clothing brands remarkably just like FUCT, including FCUK, the F Word and Fvck Street Wear.

In the case of FUCT, the rejection was based on the concept that the homonym could be perceived as equivalent For the vulgar word it feels like this.

Terrible news

Two years ago, the Supreme Court cited the First Amendment in precipitation a ban on trademark registration for trademarks that denigrate individuals or groups. I consider the judges within the FUCT case should do the identical.

Some justices expressed concern during oral arguments that allowing offensive terms to be trademarked may very well be perceived as a form of presidency endorsement of that language.

I disagree, but more importantly, trademark law mustn’t police morality. It's a terrible thing to do.

And for the reason that court has now made it permissible to register racist and sexist trademarks, drawing the road between “scandalous” and “immoral” marks would send a terrible message to disadvantaged groups who’re typically victims of such insults.

Otherwise we could well be FUCT.