Slashdot Mirror
Sarah Palin Seeks To Trademark Her Name
Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has filed paperwork with the US Patent and Trademark Office in November to trademark her name. On her initial application, Palin listed usage of the trademark for a website featuring information about political issues; and educational and entertainment services, including motivational speaking in the fields of politics, culture, business and values. Legal experts say it is relatively unusual for politicians to formally trademark their names because they are generally not associated with commercially valuable products or services and that trademarking a name is more common for celebrities in the fields of entertainment, fashion or sports. 'Sarah is somebody who is now out of government and pursuing other activities, in particular, speaking engagements ... and it looks like she's looking to protect her name with those activities,' says attorney Claudia Ray."
Maybe.. she's an entertainer pretending to be a politicans, infact did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?
did you forget to take your meds?
February is supposed to be "no Sarah Palin News Month". Please, Slashdot, honor the effort!
How thick are you? Using her trademark registration "as a club to try to quell speech" is not a literal statement. There is no suggestion of violence. Nobody is claiming that she is somehow going to take the registration, make a knobbly club out of it (perhaps using the techniques of papier mache) and beat people she dislikes with the resultant weapon. Just in case you forgot the start of that sentence by the time you got to the end of it: NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THIS.
Moron.
$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
[Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech.
The club is a metaphor ... just like the ponies on /., they represent something other than their specific definitions.
That'll be the Fox News that argued successfully that it had the constitutional right to lie to its viewers.
I think there's enough blame to go around. Just take a look at The EFF online free speech cases to see that there are lots of folks looking to suppress somebody's speech: corporations, government, schools, etc. And that's only online. Blaming only the left doesn't get close to covering the whole collection of people with an interest in keeping someone from saying something they don't especially like.