...in the Trayvon Martin case.
It seems that he uses a trait that is sorely missing in the discussion - empathy, such as when he addresses the issue of Trayvon's mother getting a trade-mark for his name:
Many people seem to be upset that Treyvon Martin’s mother has filed for trademark protection for her son’s name. I can’t help but think that if people knew the real story here, they wouldn’t be outraged at all.
As soon as the Treyvon case gained national attention opportunists across the country started printing t-shirts, signs and other little goodies with Treyvon’s name on them. Some simply said “I am Treyvon.” Some t-shirts were vile – with pictures of Treyvon over printed racial insults. One “entrepreneur” announced plans for a collection of Treyvon hoodies.
Now put yourself in the place of Treyvon’s mother. She sees people across the country using her dead child’s name to make money and deliver messages, some of which she may not necessarily agree with. What does she do? She says something about it to her lawyer. Her lawyer tells her that she can protect her son’s name by filing for trademark protection. So she does. How can a rational person have a problem with this? If I had been her lawyer I would have given her the same advice.
Oh! You say that she also trademarked “I am Treyvon” and “Justice for Treyvon?” So? It was her son. Now she feels she has a cause. Perfectly understandable. Are you going to tell her that she cannot use her son’s name in promoting her cause?
Boortz says things that aren't going to make either "side" happy, but maybe the answer is that there shouldn't be sides.





















No comments:
Post a Comment