A New York Times staff editorial about the Supreme Court's Decision in Matal v. Tam includes this unusual passage:
The decision is likely to help the Washington Redskins, who lost their trademark protections in 2014 after years of complaints from Native American groups. At the time, this page supported the Trademark Office's decision, and we still regard the Redskins name as offensive. Based on this case, however, we've since reconsidered our underlying position.
It's great to see the New York Times editors come around on this point. So long as they are readjusting their past editorial positions to bring them into conformity with modern and sensible First Amendment jurisprudence, how about a review of the paper's longstanding advocacy of campaign finance "reform" — i.e., stifling limits on the political speech that the First Amendment protects?