Since introducing herself to the world as Caitlyn Jenner on the July cover of Vanity Fair, Jenner has capitalized on her privilege and social media presence to shine a much needed spotlight on the transgender community. And while millions have empathized with her struggle, it was only a matter of time until the internet does what it does best, and turned her coming out into a joke. Cue the Caitlyn Jenner Halloween costume.

There’s now a Caitlyn Jenner Halloween costume and it’s as terrible as you expected http://t.co/R1v7bQsQxP pic.twitter.com/1cQzjNC8Xh

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) August 24, 2015

The $74.99 unisex costume, which is modeled after her Vanity Fair cover shot, includes white shorts, a padded white top, a brown wig, and a pageant sash reading “Call Me Caitlyn,” and is listed on many costume retailers’ sites under the category “humor.” Twitter quickly blew up with people both defending and condemning the costume.  Here are just a few examples below.

@chrisparente @Caitlyn_Jenner @KDVR she’s a celebrity. Almost all celebrities have a costume. Why should she be excluded. = means = — Mario (@Maguirre90) August 21, 2015

@bae_sic If Bruce Jenner can wear a Caitlyn costume, why can’t anyone else? — Maria Sanchez (@nmlinguaphile) August 25, 2015

The struggle that Caitlyn Jenner has to face isn’t a Halloween costume. Whoever made this is a shitty person. pic.twitter.com/dlwP4LJraw — RXB SPXXRS (@Sonickid1234) August 13, 2015

Caitlyn Jenner Halloween costumes are disgusting. Trans people are not a costume for you to laugh at. pic.twitter.com/AumLLeM41U — anna (@nutellaANDpizza) August 25, 2015

If i see anyone in a “Caitlyn Jenner costume” this halloween.. my momma better hold me back.. — steven (@deathofadisco) August 21, 2015

My personal favorite (even though I do not condone any beverage violence):

They’re selling a Caitlyn Jenner costume for Halloween? If I see anyone wearing it I will personally throw hot tea in your disgusting face — Ethan (@EthanPamyu) August 22, 2015

A change.org petition started by Addison Vincent against SpirtHalloween.com, a retailer who carries the costume, begged the site to take down the costume. In the petition Vincent wrote,

Do not turn Cailtyn Jenner into a costume. Your profit will only lead to greater transphobia and marginalization of an already at-risk community.

However, Lisa Barr, senior director of marking at Spirit Halloween responded defending the costume saying,

At Spirit Halloween, we create a wide range of costumes that are often based upon celebrities, public figures, heroes and superheroes. We feel that Caitlyn Jenner is all of the above and that she should be celebrated. The Caitlyn Jenner costume reflects just that.

Spirt Halloween has since taken the costume down from their site, but has given no explanation as to why. However, the negative publicity hasn’t stoped other retailers, from continuing to sell the costume to consumers on sites like AnytimeCostumes.com and WholesaleHalloweenCostumes.com, which sells the getup for only $49.90.

Sadly, the tasteless costume shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. For years Halloween has been used by many as an excuse to culturally appropriate others for laughs. Take blackface for example, which never fails to make a comeback every October, despite all efforts to educate ignorant wearers of its racist history.  It is nice to see people sticking up for Caitlyn and the transgender community, but we shouldn’t forget that other offensive costumes still stock the shelves of some of our most popular Halloween retailers.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People Suck: There’s Now a Caitlyn Jenner Halloween Costume appeared first on Law Street.

This past weekend “50 Shades of Grey” actress Dakota Johnson showcased her comedic roots while hosting “Saturday Night Live” for the first time. However, it’s not Johnson’s acting range that everyone is talking about now, but rather a controversial skit she appeared in poking fun at the Islamist terror group ISIS.

In the skit Johnson and SNL cast member Taran Killam parody a tear jerking Toyota Camry ad, where a father drops his daughter off at the airport to presumably join the military. SNL’s version had a twist, though, as this time the daughter’s ride was none other than a truck full of armed ISIS members. Their arrival is followed by this hilarious exchange:

Father: “You be careful, ok.”

Daughter: “Dad, it’s just ISIS.”

Father (Looks at ISIS member): “You take care of her.”

ISIS Member whispers:  “Death to America.”

The truck then pulls away with guns blazing while the slogan “ISIS. We’ll take it from here, Dad” appears in the lower right corner.

If you haven’t yet seen the skit in question check out the video below.

It singlehandedly became the most talked-about skit of the night, with many people debating whether the comedy was offensive or not. Below are a few tweets from people on both sides of the debate.

Absolutely floored that anyone would find the #SNL ISIS skit funny. Nothing funny about it, it was tasteless.Desensitized much? #OrangeRoom

— Rebecca (@becca76) March 1, 2015

I’m still sick to my stomach about that ISIS skit. God I hope friends/family of those burned alive or decapitated weren’t watching. #SNL

— JayhawkMama (@JHawkintheSouth) March 1, 2015

Thought the ISIS skit on #SNL was funny as hell. We’ve mocked terror and evil throughout history. Remember this? pic.twitter.com/HurKEvhdqF

— Obnoxious Boston Fan (@realOBF) March 2, 2015

Seriously? SNL is being criticized for mocking Isis, and the people who join it? There’s no group more deserving of ridicule. Thumbs up #SNL

— Katherine Morrison (@kmorrison) March 1, 2015

By turning ISIS into a punch line, SNL openly challenged the group’s ideology. As it turns out, it seems like more people did like it than find it offensive. This morning, the “Today Show” decided to ask its viewers if they thought SNL went too far with the skit. So far the poll has over 12,500 votes, with over half of the voters (54 percent) picking “no.”

Some found the faux ad particularly distasteful after the recent death of 26-year-old American aid worker Kayla Mueller, who was kidnapped and held ransom by ISIS members in August 2013. However, the skit wasn’t mocking Mueller, it was mocking ISIS as an organization and the people who choose to join it.

Personally, I found the skit funny and wasn’t at all offended. SNL has parodied several controversial American enemies in the past including Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, making this terrorist-themed joke neither its first nor most likely its last. There’s something to be said about the ability to take something tragic and scary and find humor in it, thus alleviating its power. As SNL celebrates its 40th anniversary, here’s to hoping they continue to push the envelope and keep us all laughing.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SNL’s ISIS Skit: Insensitive or Hilarious? appeared first on Law Street.

What’s unacceptable for pork is OK for people these days? At first glance of the Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to reject a mark for “Redskins Hog Rinds,” I felt of tinge of angst rise within me due to the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins’ use of the trade name for their team. Seriously? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

But after taking a step back and assessing the bigger picture, I realize that what the PTO is actually doing here is setting precedence!

Here’s the story: back in 2009 when the Washington Redskins’ trademark was up for appeal before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the PTO failed to terminate the Redskins’ trademark protection on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ claim had surpassed the statute of limitations. The case was never dismissed on its merits.

However, recently the Washington Redskins’ trademark has been under heavy scrutiny — warranting opinions by members of congress, Native American tribes, civil rights groups, and even the president himself. The suit, invoked by a Native American collective, is before the TTAB where the PTO is considering whether the Redskins’ moniker and logo should lose their federal registration status. I’m feeling like… the PTO is foreshadowing a decision in favor of Washington’s NFL team losing its trademark.

On December 29 in a rejection letter for the “Redskins Hog Rinds” mark, the PTO stated that the term phrase may contain “offensive slang” or “disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.” Oh word? The letter went on to point out that definitions of the ‘redskins’ word indicate derogatory connotations, in addition to the word being cited as offensive by many Native American groups, including the National Congress of American Indians.

So what would this mean for the team? Well, losing federal registration of the mark wouldn’t necessarily force the team to change its name. In fact, they could choose to ignore the decision altogether and keep operating their business as usual. However, because they would no longer have protection over the name, if I wanted to create Redskins t-shirts and sell them in my boutique (this is all hypothetical), neither Dan Snyder nor the NFL could do anything about it. I also recently learned that the NFL divides merchandise sales across the league, meaning that if the Redskins lost their trademark, the entire league could be out of pocket.

I’m interested to know where some of you stand on this dispute. Is the PTO overreaching by deeming the mark as derogatory? Are they opening the doors to hyper-sensitivity and prudently narrowing the pool of phrases available for registration? Or are they proper in determining that this mark shouldn’t be granted protection in light of evidence indicating that the term ‘redskin’ is racially offensive?

Perhaps that last question is leading, but that’s only because I personally don’t see how this is even an issue that could be contested. The Lanham Act states that a mark is not to be granted trademark protection if it is found to be disparaging or offensive, which it so clearly has been. It’s against the law people! At this juncture, perhaps the Redskins should direct their focus on winning more games or creating a captivating new mark, because I’m pretty sure this is a wrap.

Gena

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Get in touch with Gena via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why the Redskins Should Prepare for Trademark Loss appeared first on Law Street.