Sanders Campaign Accused of Trademark Bullying By Web Site (buzzfeed.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Buzzfeed is reporting that "An online merchant has accused the Bernie Sanders campaign of 'trademark bullying'. after a Bernie 2016, Inc. attorney sent him a cease and desist letter regarding t-shirts, mugs, and sweatshirts depicting the candidate with historic communist leaders..." The t-shirt's designer tells Buzzfeed "He didn't seem to be the type of candidate, the type of guy, who would do something like this... I would think Bernie, or one of his staff members will step in and put an end to it. It appears to be pretty silly."
In January Ars Technica reported that lawyers for the Sanders campaign had demanded their logo be removed from pages on Wikipedia -- before later withdrawing that DMCA notice.

Comments

Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's all just a controlled sport anyway, like American wrestling.

go to one of the hundreds if not more websites which are bitching for the left and for the right. trump trump trump! hillary's emails oh boo hoo, what's a matter sanders, chicken? bawk bawk bawk jeb bush can still win but trump trump trump

just like the cattle lining the aisles and wallets of wally world.

make it stop! MAKE IT STOP! It's even worse now with the fucking arabic spoken all over the place.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Korean teacher. Ever time she tries to say election, it comes out as "erection".

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[MachineShedFred]

I give a shit. Me, right here.

You asked, I answered. Why do I give a shit? Because political speech, and parody, are protected under the first amendment.

I have no idea what the rest of your post is on about, but you might see a doctor about adjusting your medication.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[shaitand]

I certainly agree that they are. The sale of T-shirts is not protected by the first amendment. But others have successfully made millions off of parody so lets set that aside a moment as well.

The nature of trademark is such that if one doesn't attempt to defend it when violations are brought to one's attention it dilutes the trademark. It isn't like copyright or patents where you can selectively enforce.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[blackomegax]

The first amendment only protects you from government. Sanders campaign is not a government entity and can act as they are acting within their rights. It's up to a court to decide the outcome, and THAT COURT can not prevent speech, but can uphold trademark.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[Penguinisto]

So, I open the local paper, and I see a cartoon in the op-ed section that clearly shows a candidate's trademark...

...not protected, you say?

Yes, I know the diff between a purely commercial activity and a newspaper opinion, but think about it - why is commercial activity suddenly not 'speech' just because it is a commercial activity?

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[ShanghaiBill]

The sale of T-shirts is not protected by the first amendment.

But what is printed on the T-shirts is protected.

The nature of trademark is such that ...

What trademark? As a public figure, Bernie's likeness is not protected. If McCall was using a specific logo of Bernie's campaign, there might be an issue, but if you look at his website, that doesn't appear to be the issue here. He also has T-shirts ridiculing Trump and Hillary.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[tepples]

The first amendment only protects you from government. Sanders campaign is not a government entity and can act as they are acting within their rights.

Said "rights" were created by the government.

THAT COURT can not prevent speech, but can uphold trademark.

A court cannot uphold a trademark if upholding a trademark would unduly prevent speech.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[MachineShedFred]

Trademark law is trumped by the constitution and it's amendments. Free Speech prevails as long as it is within the accepted bounds (not endangering public by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.)

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[KGIII]

What's disappointing is Bernie's campaign in general. First, it's really shitty that the media has pretty much nullified much of his efforts but the gaffes are pretty rough to accept. He's not done a very good job at campaigning, not at all. I first noticed it when he allowed the microphone to be taken and the BLM folks to interrupt him.

I really like him - I've even met him. I'm very likely to still vote for him. I've sent his campaign some money. But, even with what the media has done to his campaign - he's NOT helping. Well, more accurately, the folks he has supporting him and working for him are not helping. It's much easier to campaign in small States and he really does seem an ill fit for the national campaign trail.

He's going to be yet another politician that I've voted for who hasn't a shot in hell at winning. I find that oddly comforting. I've only voted for the winning candidate, in the presidential election, once - and I've voted every chance I got since 1978.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because trademark has exception of fair use. Commercial use of trademark (the very thing that it is designed to protect against) does not fall under those exceptions. Newspapers and news media have alot more protection against copyright and fairuse claims as long as they don't overdo it if you haven't noticed under current law.

Re: Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, I wouldn't have taken you to be a commie.

Re: Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[amiga3D]

Well, you've got to consider what Bernie is running against. I am a staunch Conservative but given a choice between Bernie and Hillary I'd be grateful to vote for Bernie.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[Theaetetus]

What trademark? As a public figure, Bernie's likeness is not protected.

Lanham Act, 43: FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN

(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person,...
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

I don't see "unless the another person is a public figure" in there, do you?

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[Xenographic]

> The nature of trademark is such that if one doesn't attempt to defend it when violations are brought to one's attention it dilutes the trademark. It isn't like copyright or patents where you can selectively enforce.

You might want to ask the EFF about that:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[Anonymous Coward]

You give a shit because you're an idiot. Putting someone side by side with one of the worst mass-murderers in history, as if they were pals or their ideas had anything to do with each other, isn't parody.

It's plain libel, unless you truly believe that a future president Sanders is going to institute a massive system of forced labor camps in Alaska or somewhere, (yes, I know GULAG was originally a Trotsky thing, but it's Stalin who ultimately formed the system) and begin to assign the Secret Service quotas of people to be executed, arrested and / or interned every month for no other reason than to spread fear among the rest of the population.

Stalin is not a joke. If you think so, you're positively retarded, or at least historically ignorant to the point where there's no difference.

Re: Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[reboot246]

That's not much of a choice, but I know how you feel. Given the choice between Hillary and Satan, Satan would get my vote.

Bernie is not quite Satan; he's just a sad little man with fucked up ideas that have never worked. I do believe he loves the country and that's more than I can say about the current resident of the White House.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[shawn2772]

The nature of trademark is such that if one doesn't attempt to defend it when violations are brought to one's attention it dilutes the trademark. It isn't like copyright or patents where you can selectively enforce.

On one level you're right. On a deeper lever you're completely wrong.

Yes, it's true that leaving your trademark undefended can cause you to lose it. But there's an alternative to shutting down every use you find: You can simply grant gratis licenses. Not only does this ensure that your trademark remains undiluted, but it even allows you to exercise a non-trivial amount of control over usage because you can attach strings to the license grant. Even if the trademark use isn't actually infringing, as long as you keep the strings relatively light people are highly likely to follow your guidelines just because it's easier than getting lawyers involved, and because they appreciate that you're trying to work with them.

In a case like this, the campaign might even get some good press out of it if they worded the license letter in a suitably humorous way. Sending C&D letters merely out of an obligation to "defend the trademark" is dumb, and shows an extreme lack of creativity.

All of this assumes there actually is a trademark to defend, which other posters have called into question.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[shawn2772]

The first amendment only protects you from government. Sanders campaign is not a government entity and can act as they are acting within their rights.

It's the government that defines and (partially) enforces trademark and copyright law. The fact that they're doing it on behalf of a private entity doesn't change the fact that it's a government action to suppress speech. What does matter is that the constitution specifically authorizes Congress to implement intellectual property rights legislation, so there's something of a conflict between the original text and the first amendment. But Congress and the courts have attempted to balance the issues, and the result is that there are first amendment-related limitations on the scope of intellectual property rights.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[shaitand]

Sure enough. It shows that he doesn't have the best advisors. For instance, in his last debate with Hillary it was obvious she already knew the questions and had her responses canned while the questions were obviously new to him. She or someone in her campaign has an insider. You will also notice she has the last chance to speak on each question.

There were a number of points where he could have hit her hard. When she attacked him on his gun control stances in the past he could have roasted her support of international arms deals with countries that donate to the Clinton foundation. There were at least a half dozen other points were he could have slammed her and the voice in his ear should have said as much.

Re: Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[shaitand]

Have never worked? Bernie promotes a return to the only sort of economic policies that have ever worked in the US. What the R party is pushing has only been tried to a significant degree twice the first time it led to the great depression and the second time the great recession.

His "commie" programs wouldn't even return taxation to Carter administration levels.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[shaitand]

C&D letters to people with blatant fair use arguments could be a creative way to get the job done. They reply making an argument for fair use, you file that away, and now you have a record of defending your trademark.

As to whether or not there even actually is one, being a public figure does not negate his ability to file trademarks that is false. I have no idea if he actually has or not, looking would require more shits than I can spare for this issue. ;)

Re: Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[ShanghaiBill]

Have never worked? Bernie promotes a return to the only sort of economic policies that have ever worked in the US.

High tax and heavy regulations worked from 1945 to about 1975 because of unique circumstances. The rest of the world had been turned to rubble in WW2, oil was cheap, and the dollar was dominant. That world no longer exists. We are not going to bring it back with cargo-cult economics.

The policies that Bernie advocates are used in other countries. For one example, look at France. They have rigid labor markets, lots of regulation, strong unions, government run steel mills, etc. All the things that Bernie wants. They also have a stagnant economy, over 10% unemployment, and unsustainable deficits. For another example of what happens when liberals get everything they want, look at Detroit.

Re: Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[KGIII]

I'm not. Neither is Sanders.

Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT?

[KGIII]

Oh, absolutely. He's being trashed and trashed hard in this campaign. I really do want to avoid saying this but I am going to...

I've not normally a conspiracy theorist kind of person. I think I've got the posting history to demonstrate that I'm not. I'm pretty well grounded and don't usually speculate about things that are impossible to disprove nor do I think there are giant conspiracies that we don't know about and all that sort of stuff.

However...

This just seems too much like a perfect storm. At nearly every turn, he's stymied or suffers from some sort of gaffe. That's a bit too convenient, if you ask me. There's no way he'll get the nomination, none. The DNC will not nominate Sanders - they weren't going to nominate him even if he had the majority of populous support. And, he doesn't - by the way. He might have had the populous but he never had the chance.

It's unfortunate because he's the best choice you've got. Me? I'll be fine. I'm more than well protected and insulated from even fairly major political upheavals. Even if the entirety of the US' economy failed, even if the value of the US dollar dropped to zero, I will be fine. I'm pretty diversified and have enough hard assets to ensure that I'll be just fine - even if there's a complete failure of the social system, justice system, or government. I'll be okay.

So, Sanders means I'll pay a bit more in taxes. I have never minded taxes. I have always minded them being spent the way they are spent. For the average citizen, for the regular person, for the Average Joe and his wife Normal Mary (with their 2.23 children named Jeffery and Alice) Sanders is the only realistic choice. If anyone thinks otherwise then they're basically saying that the Status Quo is fine or they're saying that Trump is a realistic option. I find both laughable - though Trump might be an amusing option and he'd be mostly harmless. I do not believe Trump is Hitler, for example.

As a matter of fact, if Bernie and Donald were to run on the same ticket, I'd vote for 'em. Hands down, no questions asked, my vote would go for Trump. I think if the Republicans fuck over Trump (he "deserves" the nomination as he's seemingly earned it) and the Dems do what they're already doing (which is preventing Bernie from even getting a shot) then I have every reason to suspect that if Sanders and Trump ran on the same, an Independent, ticket then they'd win - hands down and by a huge margin. At least as things stand now.

Unfortunately, the electoral college would then take their turn and the popular vote would probably.... Well, no... They'd pretty much have to. Sanders and Trump, together, would win by a landslide. The electoral college would have to vote that way or the country would erupt in violent riots within an hour. I seriously believe that they'd win, in that situation. I'm half-tempted to try to make contact with one or both of them. I do actually have a few political connections but they're fairly distant, not really friends, and I'm not sure if they'll really be able to get a message in front of either of them. I just don't have that kind of clout. :( I don't know anyone who does, either.

I...Umm... I don't suppose you've got that kind of clout and want to run a message to 'em on my behalf? :D

US election

[Anonymous Coward]

I's not very different from all the shit coming out of Hollywood. You guys need a civil war to get rid of a lot of idiots and weapons.

Re: US election

[johnsmithperson123]

Actually no, since all the weapons are on one side. And all the money. And all the food. So a civil war would be short and miserable for city dwellers.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that guns are on both sides.
On the democrat side because they need leverage against the corporate boogeyman taking over their government and enacting a corporate police state.
On the republican side because they like guns and need leverage against a statist boogeyman taking over their whatever.

Re: US election

[Boronx]

The most dangerous thing about conservatives is that they think liberals aren't armed.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority are not. Or have a fraction of the weaponry on the right.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, all the weapons are on one side. All the weapons that really matter that is. I'm talking things like tanks and nukes. And all those are on the side of the government. All you conservative fools who think you're gonna bring about the second coming of Jesus or make those niggers work your fields again are far beyond deluded. Your paltry pistol ain't doing shit against a military arsenal.

Re: US election

[silentcoder]

Only to the kind of idiot who thinks a gun is the most dangerous weapon around. There are weapons a million times more dangerous than guns or even atom bombs ... and liberals have almost all of them.

Guns can be pried from your fingers... but you can't pry our weapons out of our skulls.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they know the liberals type are hypocrite. Hoarding gun for the planed cleansing, while promoting disarming everyone else.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually since the military is way more conservative than most of America....
And guns don't help if you don't have any food.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, guns are the tool for prying your weapons from your skull.

One bullet between the eyes and your weapon is splattered on the wall behind you.

Re: US election

[laurencetux]

Okay i can see your tanks and stuff and raise you by https://www.victoriassecret.co...

Re: US election

[PopeRatzo]

Actually since the military is way more conservative than most of America...

It depends on if you're talking about the officers or the enlisted men.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much everybody but the very top brass (presidential appointees). That's how we got this whole "women in combat" and "gay integration" thing. Needless to say it will go away instantly with a Republican president.

Re: US election

[CronoCloud]

Pretty much everybody but the very top brass

So basically all the Gomer Pyle's then.

That's how we got this whole "women in combat" and "gay integration" thing. Needless to say it will go away instantly with a Republican president.

Didn't go away with the second Bush, considering women have been piloting combat aircraft since 1993.

And Women flying AH64 Apaches who kill from above with 30mm cannons and Hellfires.

And gay people have been fighting for this country ever since this country was founded.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant in ground forces. I'm not so much as an idiot as to say women don't usually make better pilots.

Re: US election

[GLMDesigns]

You must have contempt for the people in the military to think that they would fire on their brothers and sisters who simply want the constitution to be upheld.

Re: US election

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, because there are absolutely no Democrats that ever saddle up with big business. No wait, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is exactly that.

Re: US election

[MachineShedFred]

There have been women Marines for quite some time, and many male Marines are very respectful, if not outright fearful of them.

You don't want to screw around with a WM.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the people who want to foment violence against the government because they "simply want the constitution to be upheld" are clueless yahoos who don't actually have the slightest idea as to what is in the constitution.

I will tell you one thing that is in the constitution, which is that armed rebellion is treason.

Re: US election

[Type44Q]

So true; it also depends what branch of the service. Air Force pilots (i.e. officers) have a well-deserved reputation for being douches that goes back decades; while there's currently a raging epidemic of evangelical fundamentalism occurring (particularly among cadets at the Academy in Colorado Springs), during 'Nam they tended to be merely racist, insecure Southern-fratboy hotheads. Naval aviators, on the other hand (particularly carrier pilots), were known for being a lot more cool, calm and collected...

Re:US election

[jellomizer]

These are a lot of issues from the last civil war. It is just at some point the Democrats became Republicans and the Republicans became Democrats.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians are always two-sided. You've only shown that hypocrisy and stupidity is adamant on both sides, except one side is more forthright clown (conservatives) while the other side likes playing a righteous person on the outside but is an Orwellian snake on the inside (liberals).
Frankly, weapons or not, i am more for keeping a balance of power between government and corporations and fear both for different reasons. As things stand, corporations have more money and power than the government, and can easily use the technology they create and supply to the government in order to blackmail and subvert the governing collective.
On the opposing hand, UK is an example of a kind of government i fear in terms of Western examples, albeit it could be argued that they are also kissing corporate ass.

Re: US election

[Whorhay]

There were some Navy and Marine troops at the tech school I attended during my stint. I will never forget seeing a formation of mixed sex marines stomping past a formation I was in. The WM's had arms bigger than my legs and honestly the only way they stood out from the males was that they were shorter on average.

Re: US election

[Applehu Akbar]

"Your paltry pistol ain't doing shit against a military arsenal."

A "military arsenal" which performs well against other large armies in the open field but has not done well against armed civilian populations. It managed a costly draw against North Korea, lost to the Viet Cong, and lost even to the ragtag Taliban.

Re: US election

[KGIII]

Every Marine is, first and foremost, a rifleman. That includes the Lady Marines. The Lady Marine will have also had MCT. Fuck with a Lady Marine at your own peril.

Re: US election

[KGIII]

To be fair, that's because you're using the wrong definition of lost. But yes, the military/government would have a very hard time dealing with an armed insurrection. Politically, it simply would be impossible. They can not, for example, drop a bunch of Hellfire missiles into downtown Boston and expect the rest of the planet to not intervene.

At any rate, Korea, Viet Nam, and even the Taliban lost the military war vs. the US. You're using the wrong definition when you say the US lost those conflicts.

Re: US election

[Applehu Akbar]

My definition of 'lost' is: we invaded, we threw in huge numbers of troops, which were worn down and eventually we had to withdraw the survivors, leaving the enemy in possession of the field and the Oppressed Peasants exactly as oppressed as they were before we invaded. What definition would you prefer?

Re: US election

[Type44Q]

You, Sir, are not a patriot.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

Those were all proxy wars versus a much more well-funded opponent. See also Charlie Wilson's War. And in point of fact, the exact same thing was true during the Revolutionary War. The French bankrolled the American Revolution, provided arms, gunpowder, cannon, an unjustifiably celebrated sixth-rate frigate, a moderate army, and the world's second-largest navy.

If you don't have an army and don't have a powerful nation-state backing your cause, you're going to get massacred, no matter how well armed you think you are.

Re: US election

[WrongMonkey]

You mean like the Kent State shooting where the military actually did fire on their "brothers and sisters"?

Re: US election

[HornWumpus]

You are right: Lies are weapons, liberal have most of them and you can't pry them out of their mouths...

Re: US election

[GLMDesigns]

No. I think you're mistaken here. Purposely mistaken. One the National Guard was far less professional in 1970 then it is now. And second we're talking about civil war - active combat and not a few scared, unprepared kids panicking under pressure and lack of professional leadership.

Re: US election

[WrongMonkey]

we're talking about civil war - active combat

So if those students had been armed and the guardsmen had orders to shoot, that would have made them LESS likely to fire? Now you're just being silly.

Re: US election

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I mean look how we just nuked the shit out or Iraq and Afghanistan right? I love dummies who think their tanks and bombs would pacify a us population in revolt.

That said delusions of such a revolt are equally silly far right wing nut fantasies.

Re: US election

[GLMDesigns]

Yes. I misspoke. If it gets to active civil war I think a large part of the military will desert/retire/ join forces with their brothers and fathers who are standing up to tyranny.

I do not think military will be an active part of subverting the constitution. I think they will refuse to follow orders. I know too many people who are/were active. The members of the military that I know of (yes a very small percentage of the total) are very respectful and mindful of the constitution and balance of powers; many have complete contempt for the portion of the populace that want to turn this country into a European Nanny State in which people are subjects of the government as opposed to citizens of.

You know the type. The type that votes for and supports the Nancy Pelosi "you have to pass the bill to know what's inside the bill."

Re: US election

[GLMDesigns]

No. Kent State was almost entirely an issue of unprofessionalism. Unprofessionalism in part of the national guardsmen who shot their weapons and unprofessionalism of their commanders.

We're facing a much different situation here. It's not simply a case of "have weapons" or "not have weapons." We're talking about whys and wherefores here. The guardsmen are not robots (and that's why I think we're going to have more and more non-human guardsmen. One they won't panic, and two they will follow immoral orders). And that is the key issue: The guardsmen at Kent State were not ordered to fire into the crowd. They panicked. I don't think that guardsmen (especially a far more professional guard) will fire into a crowd of people who are not causing physical harm to property (unlike the BLM movement) and are not threatening their neighbors.

Re: US election

[sumdumass]

I saw a skull try to stop a .308 once. It didn't end well for the skull. Sounds like you are looking at little green men and thinking your plastic butter knife is the bomb. Unfortunately the difference between make believe and reality is often just what is still there when you open your eyes.

Re: US election

[fnj]

The U.S. military did not "lose" to the Viet Cong. It essentially wiped them out. The peace then negotiated with the North Vietnamese was then not defended by the worn out US political establishment, and the North Vietnamese regular forces staged an invasion in defiance of the agreement they signed; an invasion which the US civil leadership declined to engage.

For that matter, the US did not "manage a costly draw" against North Korea. It fully achieved its objective against North Korea quite speedily, after which the Chinese invaded and were fought to a draw though they vastly outnumbered the US forces.

Learn some history, for gosh sake. Don't make absurd claims.

Re the Taliban, you make a goddam good point, though that was a chicken-shit commitment on the part of the US.

Re: US election

[Agripa]

I will tell you one thing that is in the constitution, which is that armed rebellion is treason.

So like law enforcement routinely violating the 4th amendment through civil assets forfeiture at the point of a gun?

Re: US election

[Boronx]

True about the fraction, but a lot of right wingers are over armed.

Re: US election

[silentcoder]

Actually - I was talking about science and scientists.

With science -I can make guns, or bombs. You can't however, make science out of guns and bombs.

Re: US election

[silentcoder]

A skull can't stop .308 sure... it can do better.
It can design a more powerful weapon.

Re: US election

[sumdumass]

You really don't need a more powerful weapon but good luck designing something, building it, and employing its use before the 1.05 seconds it takes for a travel 1000 yards accurately.

Of course there are better caliber rifles now. The 7mm is outstanding as a sniper rifle but the availability of the .308 is simply unmatched in both rifles and ammunition that can be had easily.

Re: US election

[silentcoder]

The difference is simple and stark. No matter what weapons you have brains can always make better ones. But no weapon can make better brains.

Re: US election

[sumdumass]

I think you are missing the point. Your brain stops working when you are dead from sitting there thinking about the better weapons and someone introduces your skull to an existing weapon.

Re: US election

[silentcoder]

You need to watch more MacGuyver and less A-team dude. There are a thousand ways to win a gunfight and only the dumbest one involves having a gun.

Re: US election

[sumdumass]

Oh noes... i bet you have a copy of the anarchist cook book too.

I'm pretty sure we can discount the rest of what you say. BTW the A team never killed anyone.

Re: US election

[silentcoder]

>I'm pretty sure we can discount the rest of what you say.

Feel free to do so, I have neither the need nor the desire to convince or impress you. Just consider this. We both know there are bad people in the world with guns. I do not feel the need to own one to keep myself safe from them. You may think me foolish, but I think you a coward. I can't imagine why one would think you would need a gun to defend yourself from gunmen... and I have the science backing me up, all studies bar none find that guns are absolutely terrible for self defence. It's not just a cowardly solution - it's a horribly ineffective one.

>BTW the A team never killed anyone.

I never said they did - it is actually quite remarkable how they could fire thousands of bullets at people and never hit anybody. I was merely contrasting somebody who relied on lots of heavy arsenal with somebody who relied on outsmarting his opponents because he hated guns.

Re: US election

[KGIII]

I prefer a more unbiased, honest, and accurate definition which is not so binary. Politically we tied in North Korea and, maybe, in Viet Nam. You might also want to read up how we got there - we were basically cleaning up after the French. What we did in Viet Nam was give the South Vietnamese, at their behest, aid against the NVA invading military. What we did was stop helping them out militarily and they failed to defend themselves.

In Iraq, we certainly won that - both politically and militarily. How'd we win it politically? We were asked to leave. We removed the person in power, as we said, and gave the people the chance to govern themselves. We gave them the chance to put the ex-leader on trial, they did so and decided to hang him. We let them pick their next government and write regulations of their own choosing. They chose poorly.

Again, we were cleaning up after colonization mishaps and further border drawing done by the Europeans. There probably wouldn't be many of those problems had they not stripped them bare of many assets and traditional leadership and then placed arbitrary borders where there were none prior and made up whole countries that never existed before. That was, the end of it, done by the League of Nations - it's important to note that the US was not a member of the League of Nations. It's also important to note that they failed to actually follow the important steps of the Monroe Doctrine which led to things like WWII - but that's a topic for another day. Though, it should also be noted that their failing to do so was what allowed the Soviet Union to expand as much as it did pre-WWII and still has lasting impacts to this day.

History didn't begin in 1990. You're also being bombarded, possibly willfully subjecting yourself to, very biased media and history reporting that borders on dishonesty if not outright being dishonest at times. So, if we're going to have a meaningful and honest discussion about the wars then it's probably imperative that you acknowledge that terms like winning and losing are really subjective, hardly ever accurate, and very seldom clearly delineated.

For example, if you look at the German economy today and realize that they had their nation rebuilt for them, modernized for them, and done at almost no financial cost to them (the rebuilding aspect) one could actually make a logical claim that the German *people* were the victors of WWII. Numerically, they didn't even lose that many people when you compare their losses to the number of casualties suffered by the allies. If you're aware of their financial state, since WWI and actually prior to that while their King was still pretending that a monarchy was a good idea, and then look at them today - you could easily say that the people of Germany came out of WWII better than anyone else except maybe the people of the United States. However, taken the US' state of affairs into account, over the longer term, you might say that they ended up better off as an average or for the majority of people. Certainly, some Americans came out of it very wealthy and have retained that wealth.

So, it really depends on how you want to look at it. Look at Viet Nam since. Look at them now. Look at Viet Nam for the past 50 years. Look at their GDP, quality of life, level of liberties and even freedoms, and their place on the international stage. You really want to say that they won? Really? Do they look like they're on the winning side? They're just now starting to turn into an almost reasonable standard of living - and that's mostly because they've allowed people to engage in capitalism again. Do you really want to say that Viet Nam won that war? By what metric? The description you gave isn't even really all that accurate and it fails to take a whole lot of other things into account. By almost every meaningful metric, the US won that war - including the number of dead and wounded.

However, it was a catastrophe on the political side. Even then, we came out of it about as well as we could have barring complete and

Re: US election

[sumdumass]

You do understand that they are fictional tv shows for entertainment only right? There is nothing remarkable about it.

As for your need for a gun for self defense. I don't think i ever said you needed one. In fact, there are a lot of things you can do to avoid self defense altogether. But you have ignored most of that already so you will likely be unprepared and dead if someone takes you up on your provocation. The thread is about one political ideology attacking another. If it became reality, you wouldn't last long unless you hid in a bunker somewhere. Smart but also a cowardly move.

Re: US election

[silentcoder]

Actually history shows that everytime that ideology has ever attacked the other anywhere in the world it lost. Badly. I see no reason to expect the next time to be any different.
Its like the myth of how the NAZIS disarmed the jews. It never happened and the Jews were waging an armed resistence against the NAZIs throughout the war. If they hadnt the holocaust may well have succeeded.

Most things conservatives believe are myths

Re: US election

[sumdumass]

I see.. history is a myth, the a team is real, and a skull with a bullet hole through it can out think a brain with a gun.

Tell me. What happens when the guy with the gun is just as smart if not smarter than you?

Re: US election

[silentcoder]

I never suggested history is a myth - just that you are ignorant of it, and what you think history is - is mostly mythological.

I never once suggested the A-team or MacGuyver was real, that was your strawman, I merely suggested that the values taught in the latter are more valuable than those taught in the former. Fiction does teach values and those values are most certainly real.

And the thing about a smarter brain than yours is - you will never manage to PUT a bullet through it. It's smart enough to avoid being in the path of bullets (and I don't mean by any kind of supernatural means - I just mean by knowing how to not be where you think it is). It takes a real idiot to get killed by a gun - with the sole exception of crowd shooters and snipers, but those are rather exceptional cases.

Re: US election

[sumdumass]

Lol.. you have no clue about my thinking of history. The one part i revealed to you in another thread, you whole heartedly agreed with me about - FDR 'sinternment camps.

Keep walking yourself into that hole you are digging. It is funny to see you floundering.

So you think it is smart to stay inside and hide. Well beware the ides of March. We are specifically talking about sniper shootings. A .308 is accurate and deadly at over 800 yards out and was a go to military sniper rifle for quite a while and is still in service in some countries.

Re: US election

[silentcoder]

That was a plural "you" referring to conservatives in general, not you in particular. But historically - whenever conservatives and liberals have been at war -the conservatives have lost. In the US the most obvious example would be the civil war. A major factor in that victory was access to a lot of highly educated people - who tend to make good generals because they tend to be good at coming up with better tactics.

>So you think it is smart to stay inside and hide
I did not say "stay inside" - I am talking about stealth and superior tactics, not cowardice. With stealth and superior tactics an underarmed and outnumbered force can, and repeatedly has, defeated forces that both outgunned and outmanned them. Ironically - a sniper would count as stealth - but there are even better stealth tactics one might use.

Re: US election

[sumdumass]

You are just too funny. In the civil war the south for the most part had superior generals. The north was getting it's ass kicked until Sherman went total war and completely destroyed everything in his path that even pretended to have sympathy for the south. Grant was able to destroy their supply lines and basically win through superior numbers and attrition but only after Sherman burned out a huge portion of the south.

But i guess if you think destroying everything in your path and sending more people to die is what you consider a product of intelligence, I bet your think highly of hirohito and ho chi minh. Oh well.

Re: US election

[silentcoder]

It doesn't much matter whether I like what they did or not. I'm a pacifist who rejects the idea that any war can be just unless you were attacked first so much as I agree with the idea of the abolitionists I don't believe it justified a war. Had I been Lincoln I would have LET the South secede and then gave an open-border policy to any runaway slaves who wanted to come live as free men in the North.
What matters is - they won. The superior tactic, by definition, is the one that wins - no matter how horrifying it may be. There aren't any un-horrifying tactics in war - so a matter of degree is not a persuasive argument to me.

Lets take another example to clarify that point. The 2nd Anglo-Boer war of 1899-1902. During the first year of the war - the Boers held their own against the British in fairly typical combat and won most battles (they had won the 1st was just a decade earlier). The British then responded with overwhelming numbers. At the start of the war their soldiers outnumbered the Boers 3-to-1. By the 1900 it was 10-to-1.
The Boers switched tactics to a form of guerilla warfare that relied on their superior knowledge of the land, stealth skills honed as hunters, highly skilled sniper abilities (long before sniper rifles existed - these guys could hit a coin a 500 yards with a Mauser - a product of their environment, if you couldn't kill an antelope at 1000 yards with a single bullet you didn't get to eat) and turned the utter lack of discipline and extreme individualism into a strength rather than a weakness by keeping attack forces tiny (2 to 3 people). The guerilla phase of the war was absolutely won by the Boers.They would attack British lines, kill 5 to 10 soldiers and disappear without the British company ever knowing where the shots were coming from.
At this point Britain sent a general named Kitchener. Kitchener was one of history's great bastards. He looked at what was happening and realized that the guerilla tactic only worked because those scattered, tiny companies had the support of the local population. The women and children on the farms who could supply them food. So his answer was to remove the local population. He burned the land to the ground (this was actually when the term "scorched earth" was first coined - his name for the tactic) and captured all the civilians and put them in concentration camps (history's first example of those). 27-thousand women and children died in those camps.
That broke the Boer's backs. Many of them were widowers now. Many had lost their children. They all lost their farms... within a year they surrendered.

Kitchener was one of the worst bastards to ever lead an army, one of the most brutal, and if there had been a Geneva convention back then would certainly have been tried for crimes against humanity... but his tactic worked, he won. And I say that as a descendent of those Boers. I had family who died in those camps. I may despise what he did, but I can't deny it's efficacy.
There is an ironic sting in the tail of that bit of history. The boers did not know this but word had gotten back to Britain about what Kitchener was doing - and the British people were absolutely furious. They deemed this scandalous. The election of 1901 was an absolute landslide against the incumbents - the public was adament that Britain must end the camps and end this war even if it meant giving up on annexing the Boer republics.
If the boers had held on just a few more months - they would have won and had they known this they may have. On the other hand - it would have been a pyrrhic victory because their culture may well have been extinct in a few more months.
Beating them took a tactic so brutal that the general who used it very nearly lost the war because his own government was about to end the scandal - but ultimately, it worked, and Britain won the war. They lost the peace however, the aftermath of that scandal left Britain on the backfoot in subsequent negotiations and the Boer republics were effectively self governing by 1910.

Buzzfeed? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just waiting on the "Top 10 ___" articles now.

Streisand effect in 3...2...1

[Bearhouse]

Did not know about these products; they look pretty fun.
Sense of humour failure much, Bernie?

Re:Streisand effect in 3...2...1

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because you have proof that Bernie did this himself and not some idiot lawyer?

Fact: most lawyers are idiots or scumbags.
Fact: Many lawyers are both.

Re:Streisand effect in 3...2...1

[silentcoder]

Actually we have proof to the contrary. The article explicitly states that the lawfirm did this without the instruction or consent of the campaign that hired them. The seller actually said he is confident that Bernie would put a stop to it as soon as he is informed.

It will be telling to see if that prediction turns out to be accurate.

Re:Streisand effect in 3...2...1

[mwvdlee]

Either the lawyers stop this without it hitting the press (not this time) or Bernie gets to publically slap lawyers on the wrist. It's win-win.
In the real world though, the lawfirm either broke their contract or were allowed to go after anything they deemed infringements within the instructions and with consent.

Re: Streisand effect in 3...2...1

[Anonymous Coward]

I own two different T-Shirts having fun at his expense. One is him depicted as "Weekend at Bernie's", the other the other is a mixture of Bert and Ernie. Neither, as far as I know, have been C&D'd.

Re:Streisand effect in 3...2...1

[MachineShedFred]

I would hope so, because it's a shit case. It's clearly political satire / parody, which is free speech.

Yawn.

[Ixokai]

I tried to argue this, but the site is so clearly full of douchbags and jerkoffs that I don't even care.

Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing) Neither is "socialist") Random website he knows fuck all about uses his name and image without endorsement or permission, and... TRADEMARK BULLYING.

Fuck, no.

The douchebag is strong here: and that's not with the Bernie campaign.

Either way its not a story.

Re:Yawn.

[Jumunquo]

Freedom of speech. You can make fun of political figures or sell products making fun of them. I mean, wouldn't it be scary if in this world, you cannot say anything that someone would be considered douche?

They know they have no legal ground but sue as a bullying tactic. Sad.

Re:Yawn.

[Zocalo]

Either way its not a story.

Given the sheer number of mostly negative and spin-heavy stories on US presidential candidates on discussion sites at the moment, almost all of which are submitted by anonymous readers, the cynic in me suspects that it's less a "story" and more and example of one of several organised smear campaigns going on, with said sites being handily manipulated by the shills... Yes, the US election, and the UK's EU referendum for that matter, are important for any number of reasons that are worthy of discussion, like broken political systems, relative merits of voting schemes, candidates views on tech and other topics, even copyright and trademark issues. Even so, a little more rigorous qualification criteria and objectivity in story selection wouldn't go amiss.

Re:Yawn.

[Registered Coward v2]

I tried to argue this, but the site is so clearly full of douchbags and jerkoffs that I don't even care.

Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing) Neither is "socialist") Random website he knows fuck all about uses his name and image without endorsement or permission, and... TRADEMARK BULLYING.

Fuck, no.

The douchebag is strong here: and that's not with the Bernie campaign.

Either way its not a story.

While I agree this is a non story, Bernie Sanders is a public figure and a legitimate target for satire as a politician; even if it is not representative of his real political philosophy making fun of politicians for real or supposed views is a time honored tradition. Even a db is allowed to do that and plenty on all sides of the aisle do s regularly. Personally, depending on the source of the photographs a copyright violation might have occured but if Bernie dosn't own the copyright he has no claim.

Re:Yawn.

[Etherwalk]

Sort of.

He probably can't do something that makes it seem like he has the endorsement of the campaign, but he can still do a LOT because the first Amendment is strongest when it comes to political speech. There's a reason you can buy Donald Trump toilet paper.

Re: Yawn.

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, maybe you understand what it's like to be on the other side now. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, your opposition can freely smear you with horrid inaccurate labels. You're offended, alarmed, and a little bit scared the opposition might have a point. I believe the hard left calls this "social justice". How does it feel, now that the shoe is on the other foot?

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

A democratic socialist is a socialist that isn't a communist. In most of America's international allies, there is a self identifying social democratic party that is either the largest or second largest by parliamentary seats.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it would be like being stuck on the typical American college campus for the rest of your life.

Re: Yawn.

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's important that stories like this are widely publicized so that the public can see the true face of Sanders before it's too late. Your reaction is worrying as well, instead of taking the opportunity to have a conversation about what's right and what's not, even when your own side does it, your first impulse is to deny everyone the ability to talk about it. If there's nothing wrong with what Sanders is doing, then certainly there's nothing wrong with making it public.

It's called the Jumbotron test. Imagine you saying this at a stadium and your words flashing up on the Jumbotron for everyone to see. Are you embarrassed or proud? If you feel bad, that's a good sign you're on the wrong side. Sanders is clearly wrong here because you feel ashamed the story is here. The solution isn't to suppress the news, the solution is to stop saying despicable things.

Re:Yawn.

[skine]

Profit != Speech

The guy can make as many of the shirts as he wants. He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.

Also, it may be tantamount to defamation in the US. After all, it's a federal crime to be a communist or show any support for communism-related organizations.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Bernie Sanders thinks he is very different from so-called communists (but remember, real communism has never been tried, those communists aren't real ones), it's because he is as dishonest with himself as with the rest of us.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, we have freedom of speech. Still do. What we do not have and have never had is the freedom to infringe on trademarks, which is exactly what these t-shirts do. Read the actual demand letter which shows the exact logos that are trademarked and links to the shirts that used them.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it may be tantamount to defamation in the US.

Fucking, please. They've been calling Trump a Racist Misogynist, despite him not saying anything racist or misogynistic. To support the left's libelous claims they use out of context sound bytes. I only know of this massive double-standard because some claims about Trump were so outrageous I had to look up the source to see what else he said... and then found the mis-representative "quote mining".

If insinuating that Bernie is a Communist is defamation, then the entire US media ought to be indited for libel. Actually, I think Trump did say something to this effect.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between freedom of speech (attack Bernie) and using his logo on products (which is, like it or not, copyrighted and protected, and the company would need permission to use it).

Yes, the company could fight in court and argue for parody, and perhaps win it (not sure how strong parody protection is in the US. I've heard it's stronger than Europe though.) Or he could simply remove the logo and find a different way of showing Bernie. But as long as the exact logo is there, it is technically trademark or copyright infringement.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

the true face of Sanders

From a distance, it seems pretty incredible that this guy has decades in office and little or no dirt on him. Hint: if people earn tens or hundreds of millions while in public office they are certainly not serving the public cause and likely harming it.

Re:Yawn.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Join the Communist Party USA right here. Website hosted right in the USA. Clearly, these people should be in prison, but aren't. Sounds like you're just making up bullshit, how on Earth did you get +5 Informative?

• Anti Trump shirts using his likeness at Cafepress
• Anti Trump shirts using his likeness at Spreadshirt
• Anti Trump shirts using his likeness at Zazzle

So why haven't these been shut down? How many of them asked Trump's permission before using his likeness? Let me guess: free speech for me, but not for thee, right?

Re: Yawn.

[Zocalo]

"My side"? I'm not even a USian (I'm from the UK), so other than an interest in US politics in so far as those parts of it that have a major impact on the rest of the world, so I don't really have a "side" in this. We could, however, flip your argument around quite easily; clearly you *do* have a side and it's obviously not Sanders, soa chance to bash the other candidate / any member not of your chosen party isn't to be missed, is it? For the record, I don't really care either way about this; on the one hand, yes, Sanders is being a jerk here (such things are covered by political free speech/parody/satire, surely?), but on the other his name and image are being used to lampoon him and, even as a politician, he has a right to speak out on that too, right? And if doing so ends up making him look like a jerk and losing support, then I doubt either of us are going to have much of a a problem with it, even if the reasons are different.

Anyway, my point was more that this - and many other sites - seem to be running a lot more political stories that wouldn't ordinarily have been given the time of day, this one included since on the scale of things (Trump's latest outrageous comments, Hillary's email server, Cruz's ultra-conservativsm, etc., etc.) it's barely a blip on the radar, and why that might be the case. OK, we're in the run-up to a highly charged election, so you'd expect a little more political coverage, but do we *really* want every political story to be basically styled as "Candidate X was a jerk - kick 'em while they're down / leap to their defence depending on your political views", or would we rather have more meta discussions about the selection processes, the views of candidates on STEM issues? Right now, I'm seeing an awful lot of the former, and not too many of the latter, and if there's one thing that's coming out of both the US Presidential and UK's EU campaigns, it's that there are a *lot* of problems with "the system", and not much discussion of what/why that is, and how it might be fixed, and those seem like topics that are more worthy of discussion than the latest instance of whether a given politican is being a jerk or not.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf? Bernie is nowhere near communist or even socialist. In most of Europe (the US lap dog England excepted) he'd be centre aisle, possibly even slight right.

It's just the conservatives in US are so far right in Europe they'd be extremists and wouldn't have a chance of getting elected. Even your "left", the Dems, would be well right of centre in Europe.

Re:Yawn.

[silentcoder]

>They've been calling Trump a Racist Misogynist, despite him not saying anything racist or misogynistic

He has done both, repeatedly. Those who claim otherwise try to use some weird-assed technicalities to make it seem like his flagrant bigotry isn't ACTUALLY the specific KIND of bigotry being discussed. It literally comes down to "it's not racism it's xenophobia and that's supposed to be less evil" (and that would have been trueish if any of the imigrants he has an issue with were white - treating your own race as special IS racism - hating on MANY races is not LESS racist than hating on one). The things he has said about and to women were flagrant misogyny too - like his recent declaration that women who seek abortions should be punished. No wonder be backtracked from that one later the same day - even the most backward of pro-lifers don't say THAT in public !
When you're more misogynistic than Todd Aiken, you're a fucking misogynist.

And even if none of this was true it wouldn't change the fact that calling him all those things is NOT comparable to calling Bernie a communist because none of those things are federal crimes. Accusing somebody of a crime without proof is slander, merely calling him names is not. It's legal to call a politician names, its NOT legal to slander ANYBODY - even a politician.

Re:Yawn.

[silentcoder]

Except that nobody claimed copyright at all. This was a trademark letter. A completely different law with literally NOTHING in common.

Re:Yawn.

[Registered Coward v2]

Except that nobody claimed copyright at all. This was a trademark letter. A completely different law with literally NOTHING in common.

I agree, which is why I said there may be grounds for a copyright claim, if a claim was to be made, not a trademark claim.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally nothing? are you sure about that? Both have fair use clauses which is kind of what the entire legal defence would be based on whether this was a Trademark or Copyright dispute.

So you are literally wrong. They literally have some things in common.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you seriously think we should look to the continent that gave power to Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and all the Soviet goons, for guidance on where politics should be aligned?

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

defending a trademark is not bullying.
in fact, its required, or else you lose trademark status.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. "Fair Use" is specifically a doctrine of copyright law. It's true that you and me and everyone can use trademarked names to refer to the thing trademarked but that isn't a "fair use" clause, it's just the nature of what trademarks are when it comes to names.

So it's you that is "literally wrong".

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a federal crime to be a communist or member of any political party, including the Nazi party.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to say your wrong, but you should probably provide sources. In context sources.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

"My side"? I'm not even a USian (I'm from the UK)"

It always makes me laugh when people who are in other countries say they don't have a side. You do. You've stated it. Just because you can't vote in the election doesn't mean you haven't chosen a side you hope to win. And you're attempt to spin this around it pathetic. You clearly aren't good at it. It'd probably be best to not try in the future.

Re:Yawn.

[fustakrakich]

I mean, wouldn't it be scary if in this world, you cannot say anything that someone would be considered douche?

Like this?

We will never get over this censorship bullshit until we develop robust P2P and distributed services that cannot be taken down without nuking the whole planet. Make it impossible and the problem is solved, end of story.

Re:Yawn.

[budgenator]

He's over-reacting simply because he remembers how the Tina Fey/Sara Palin thing went down; a lot of low-information voters didn't know the difference what Fey said in character of Palin and what Palin actually said. Having said that I doubt the logos were copyrightable, I doubt the logos were trademarked and using the DMCA in this manner is improper and reeks of barratry.

Re:Yawn.

[0100010001010011]

And Trademark is defend it or lose it.

Re: Yawn.

[dunkelfalke]

Stupid people are proud of being stupid and making stupid quips. Thus your description of the jumbotron test only shows that you are with stupid.

Re:Yawn.

[will_die]

There are plenty of examples.
tried to ban Muslim companies from purchasing companies that have offices in the USA.
Multiple references to non-whites as "colored people"
Received funding and the support from the grandmaster of the kkk and never denounced it.
Those are just three examples of the racism.

Re:Yawn.

[mi]

He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.

Bullshit. Parodies are protected speech, which would've covered this case even if the person's name were a trade-mark. No, we are seeing the good old legal intimidation — as in "I can pay my lawyers more, so I'll drive you out of business before we get to a judge".

After all, it's a federal crime to be a communist or show any support for communism-related organizations.

I wish this were true, but it is not. Che Guevara T-shirts and other paraphernalia remain all the rage — one can be found, in fact, by scratching any climate change alarmist. Seriously — please, cite the Federal Law you are referring to.

Bernie Sanders is a Communist — sue me.

Re:Yawn.

[ganjadude]

fair use? hes a politician

Re:Yawn.

[ganjadude]

i will, hes wrong.

insulting meg kelly is not the same as being a woman hater

wanting to keep illegal immigrants out is not racist

wanting to keep muslims out until we can figure out a better solution to the refugee problem is not racist (or xenophobic)

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

The things he has said about and to women were flagrant misogyny too - like his recent declaration that women who seek abortions should be punished.

Hmm ... no, this isn't misogynist. If you take the position that abortion constitutes murder, then punishing the formerly-pregnant woman as an accessory to murder is entirely in keeping with standard legal practice. If anything, the fact that most pro-lifers support punishing only the (usually male) doctor is an instance of misandry: treating women as equally culpable to men is unpopular with both the left and the right.

Re:Yawn.

[ganjadude]

tried to ban Muslim companies from purchasing companies that have offices in the USA.

and? thats nationalism not racism

Multiple references to non-whites as "colored people"

and? so does the blacks (or afro american, or native africans or..... (insert whatever is politically correct today, but probably not tomorrow here) main group known as the NAACP. guess what the CP stands for????

Received funding and the support from the grandmaster of the kkk and never denounced it.

and??? really a non issue, for 1, he didnt court the KKK, 2 he cant control who gives him money, and this modern concept of shaming people into giving up money donated to them is utterly retarded. should we forget that the KKK in california is actually endorsing hillary? why no mention of that its never talked about in the media.

Those are just three examples of the racism.

no, those are 3 eaxamples of why you dont like a guy that you are trying to make others believe to be racist. I dont even like trump but posts like yours and everyone else making shit up is really whats pushing me to want to vote for him out of spite.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's said something racist, why don't you quote and cite it? I have yet to see a quote that can be clearly attributed to the man. Step up.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed on every single point in your post. I have not seen Trump make any racist remarks. Not one. Misogynistic? Not a single one.

Citations desperately needed here. How this uninformative, uninsightful post got score 5 is beyond me. Maybe this site really has fallen since everyone of value moved over to soylent.

Accusing somebody of a crime without proof is slander

The merchandise in question reads "Bernie is my comrade.", according to TFA. This is not slanderous in any way. Not that that matters to you, based on your post I'm going to say you're probably a Bernie shill. I like Bernie, and I would love to see a Trump v Sanders general election, but your shilling is simply too extreme for me.

It may finally be time for me to drop slashdot entirely. Based on the other posts on this article, I suspect you are the majority remaining in this dump.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it took you over twenty years to figure that out about /. I feel sorry for you.

Re:Yawn.

[youngatheart]

Thanks. I was battling with myself over whether to make those exact points. I dislike the man, but the popular accusations are almost always made in ignorance.

"My dream is to live in a nation where we can hate someone, not based on the color of their skin or which party they are associated with, but based on their words and actions." - intentionally misquoting a better man

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam isn't a race, those turd flinging medieval monsters come in all colors and all of them need to be sent to their imaginary monkey god.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Profit != Speech

The guy can make as many of the shirts as he wants. He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.

I'd bet it could be argued that these would fall under fair use - parody/criticism, but IANAL.

Re:Yawn.

[Trailer Trash]

Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing)

Maybe, but he has said nice things about evil communists (yes, Castro is evil) plenty of times of which we are aware:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/megana...

http://www.miamiherald.com/new...

It's also quite fascinating to see what the communists say about him.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Racial and sexual discrimination is already practiced by and on behalf of the federal government, on a large scale, in the form of affirmative action. I would have guessed that Trump is less supportive of this policy than, at least, Sanders. Doesn't that make him less racist or sexist?

Re:Yawn.

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, he hasn't said anything misogynistic, except for all the times he has:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
(best video example: https://youtu.be/d32577Hom08)
(other video examples: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...)

Oh, but I'm sure that's all truncated statements, and out of context? As for racism, a lot of his comments about hispanics are at best borderline. But I have a hard time as a white guy telling a hispanic who is legitimately offended by a borderline racist remark that the remark is not racist.

Any way you cut it, this guy is a gaping asshole, and has no business being sworn in as President. It's a job for a serious person.

Re:Yawn.

[MachineShedFred]

Please reference the statute that says that being a Communist or showing support for Communism is a federal crime.

Hint: you won't be able to, because such a law doesn't exist. And, if it did exist, it would be thrown out immediately for being unconstitutional, as it would clearly violate the first amendment's right to free assembly.

There is absolutely no law banning communism, just like there is no law saying you can't put a white sheet over your head and march down the street with the KKK.

How in the fuck is this scored Insightful?

Re: Yawn.

[jmac_the_man]

Profit != Speech

The guy can make as many of the shirts as he wants. He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.

That's an insane and terrible position. People should be able to criticise politicians. That's the reason the First Amendment codifies protections for freedom of speech, of the press, and of petition. Also, generally speaking, anything you are allowed to do, you are allowed to pay someone else to do on your behalf. So if you're allowed to design and make a shirt signaling your opposition to politician X, you're also allowed to buy a shirt criticising X from someone else. (And obviously, they're allowed to sell it to you.)

Also, it may be tantamount to defamation in the US. After all, it's a federal crime to be a communist or show any support for communism-related organizations.

Uh... Supporting communist organizations isn't illegal. Sanders had been registered with the government as a member of a communist-related organization (the Socialist Party) for over 30 years. Registering with a political party is registering with the government, but statistically speaking, nobody cares. (In part this is because jackbooted thugs don't show up at your door if you register as a Socialist.)

Joining organizatons that support overthrowing the government by force can get you banned from some government jobs. But as long as you're not committing otherwise-illegal acts, it's not a crime. (The Vermont Socalist party supports making the government more Socalist by peacefully electing Socalists to office. There's nothing illegal about that.)

You're also unclear on how defamation works. Saying "In my opinion, X has similar beliefs to Y" isn't defamation, even if it's not true. (The "in my opinion" part is implied by the fact that it's on a T-shirt and not a serious work of journalism or scholarship.)

Re:Yawn.

[thegarbz]

Freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not permit breaking copyright / trademark laws
Freedom of speech is not a right to make a profit.
Freedom of speech does not exonerate you from defamation.

Oh and Freedom of speech only protects you from your government, not from a private person or corporation, and even within it's scope it does a shit job.

Re: Yawn.

[MachineShedFred]

And you say all that like it's a bad thing.

Europe is perfectly welcome to continue on it's socialist path. We're happy to do our own thing, just like we have been happy to do since 1776. I don't know why everyone always points to Europe as being 'the correct way' when there is definitely a good whack of problems in the Eurozone that they are dealing with too.

And God knows that it hasn't been all that long since Europe had their share of ultra-Conservative nationalistic governments, which only lead to the two biggest wars in history; let up on the rhetoric a bit.

Re:Yawn.

[thegarbz]

Irrelevant. Politician != government. The likeliness of people vs communists does not make it satire either.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

hey mods, I disagree != troll

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

go suck bernie's dick...you may need a letter of permission from his layers first though

Re:Yawn.

[Overzeetop]

"Parodies are protected speech, which would've covered this case even if the person's name were a trade-mark."

Not quite. Parodies are an affirmative defense. If the trademark owner disagrees, you must argue your case and a Judge decides whether the use is a legitimate parody and, if it is, you are not liable for damages under the infringement statues. It's a fine distinction.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, better look at the country that gave the world Reagan and trickle-down economics.

Re:Yawn.

[cyberchondriac]

Exactly. This is getting to be part and parcel of the neoprogressive movement, it's a growing trend. It's funny to them when they rake the opposition over the coals, and call them various insults or stereotypical sweeping labels: morons, idiots, stupid, bigots, inbreds, homophobes, islamophobes, racists, sexists, etc.., and that's just "free speech"; but it's clearly offensive when anyone lobbies a criticism at the progressives, they label that as "hate speech" and there's a strong push to shut it down and silence it.
That sure sounds like democracy in action to me. (/sar)

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

defending a trademark is not bullying.
in fact, its required, or else you lose trademark status.

Filing for a trademark means all of us are legally required to use that mark to refer to the thing the mark was filed for.

Using their logo to refer to their campaign is a legal requirement for the public, and that is exactly what it is being used for. If he didn't want his logo used to represent him he should not have filed legal documents forcing us to do so.

That is how trademarks work.

Except for the fact he is running for a government position, which means all uses of his likeness are public domain anyway and he has no legal recourse for his likeness to be used by the US public.

That is how being a public figure in the government works.

Re:Yawn.

[dryeo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is still on the books though not currently enforced.
There's also the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which goes directly against the 1st amendments rule that Congress will pass no law limiting speech and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which was eventually found to be unconstitutional.

Re:Yawn.

[dryeo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is still on the books though no longer enforced.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect, even the most technically inept person on the internet could've Google'd fair use in trademark law to see that it's actually a thing. There's even a place that covers various jurisdictions interpretation of it!

http://www.inta.org/TrademarkB...

Congratulations on trying to be an internet big man and failing hard. Literally.

Re: Yawn.

[X.25]

It's important that stories like this are widely publicized so that the public can see the true face of Sanders before it's too late.

You are being too obvious. Might want to tone it down a bit and look legitimately concerned.

Re:Yawn.

[X.25]

So why haven't these been shut down? How many of them asked Trump's permission before using his likeness? Let me guess: free speech for me, but not for thee, right?

Did you even bother reading what the story is about, or you are just going to bleat until you drop dead? You are annoying as fuck and provide nothing but noise.

I am not american (or anything close, so no I am not a Bernie/Clinton/Trump/whatever fan) and don't give a flying fuck about any of the candidates, but your pointless spam is really annoying.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree, this clearly falls under protections as a parody.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, obviously communism isn't illegal. It's all part of the feminist gay agenda to make Christmas illegal!

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why confuse things with the truth?

Idiot who strongly dislikes Bernie makes website to sell things he thinks Bernie won't like.

He then calls Bernie a bully for attempting to enforce his trademark.

Yeah, that's the definition of bully. But the website owner is the bully.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take the position that abortion constitutes murder, then punishing the formerly-pregnant woman as an accessory to murder is entirely in keeping with standard legal practice.

I should clarify this: it only applies if the abortion takes place with the knowledge and cooperation of the pregnant woman. If it takes place against her will, she would not be an accessory.

Re:Yawn.

[wjcofkc]

The issue with Megan Kelly was not misogynistic behavior, it was creepy behavior. When initially, he would not let go of it, that was fine. But he clung to it so long and so vocally, it was creepy and weird, even obsessive and stalkerish. Going even further to use it as an excuse to miss debates was childish. Even above being a dullard, his biggest weakness is his immaturity. When asked about important issues, how many responses are like this:

"I just don't know about that. I'll have to look into that. I will have my people look at that. Why don't you look at that?"

And this sort of response if most often in regards to questions a presidential candidate should know about. And then there are famous responses such as:

"He started it!"

"They started it!"

He has the outlook and reasoning of a five year old. His success in business is born from psychopathy not brilliance. Every candidate has their cornerstones, such as his wall, but other candidates are able to address a myriad of issues without looking like an ignorant psychopath who only has the capacity to play on the fears of the lowest common denominator while probably not actually giving a damn about the wall or his supporters. Trump wants the presidency in order to have what is arguably the most powerful position in the world. He just wants the power.

Just before Trump became a serious candidate, I used to joke the when he gets to the White House, he will take one look at executive power and manipulate current world events as justification for suspending the constitution, then disband the government and start both a civil war and world war three while installing himself as dictator.

I know longer find that funny, and don't think it can't happen. We are staring down a modern version of 1930's Germany. If Trump becomes dictator, he will not lose a single follower, not one. The only difference will be their matching uniforms and arm band.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Multiple references to non-whites as "colored people"

and? so does the blacks (or afro american, or native africans or..... (insert whatever is politically correct today, but probably not tomorrow here) main group known as the NAACP. guess what the CP stands for????

It amazes me how easily one gets called racist for not keeping up with the euphemism treadmill.

I think the people who demand we have a euphemism treadmill for racial demographics are more racist than anyone else I know. Why the fuck do blacks even need a euphemism treadmill? I can see why retarded people would have one, but being retarded isn't something to be proud of (no matter how much the anti-SJWs screech that somebody somewhere in some completely niche context said that it was). I see no reason blacks should be ashamed of being black. I'm not ashamed of being white; I'm not a fucking European-American or German-American however. That was my great granddad who fled the kaiser in nineteen dickety two.

Once upon a time I had a chance to do some collaboration with a local chapter of the NAACP. Every time I said "African-American" like the good little politically correct brainwashed idiot I was, they'd look at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my ears. They just simply say "blacks" or "black men" or "black women." Good fucking enough for me. I changed my terminology to match theirs, and things went much smoother from there on out.

Some people are black or close to black. Other people are colored compared to my pale European skin but have black ancestors. The only problem I see with "colored" to describe blacks is that one might inadvertently include Asians. Black communities suffer many problems that are very specific to those communities.

Re: Yawn.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

""My side"? I'm not even a USian (I'm from the UK), so other than an interest in US politics in so far as those parts of it that have a major impact on the rest of the world, so I don't really have a "side" in this" Sure you do, your trying to foment civil strife inside the US, start another Civil War, and collapse the government of the USA just so Her Royal Majesty can once again march in and burn down the White House...and eventually once again claim control over your wayward colony. /sarcasm

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to see somebody else peering through the veil of privilege that the cisgendered hunnies are constantly hiding behind.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

that is the whole point. no? that sanders team is a bunch of douchebags according to the OP? if they had a sense of humor, they'd let it pass like all the ones trump has let pass.

Re:Yawn.

[ganjadude]

the sad thing is thats what normal people seem to want. I know i am sick and tired of "presidential" responses to questions that dont actually answer the qeustion. i prefer the answer of "i dont know we will look into it" instead of pretending to know aand ignoring the question to talk about something else instead

Re:Yawn.

[KGIII]

The Freedom of Speech is more accurately called the Right to Free Speech, for starters. Second, for better or worse, there have been limits imposed on this by the courts. It's important to realize that and acknowledge it if you want to have a meaningful discussion that revolves around reality.

At this point, it's reasonable to presume we'll never see this case reach a court room. The publicity for attempting to quash this will be too negative and so it will not be heard by a judge. The likelihood of this actually going anywhere is so low as to be considered impossible.

That said, the Right to Free Speech does not mean what you seem to think it means. Oh, it says what you think it says. However, reality comes knocking and it has been interpreted to mean something quite different than what it says. That generally happens with idealists and fools. There's this silly thing that I keep referencing, it's called the Law of Diminishing Returns. It's amazing how it is (seemingly) universally true.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, he hasn't said anything misogynistic, except for all the times he has: . . Oh, but I'm sure that's all truncated statements, and out of context?

Nah, just straight-up lies, mostly. If Trump is insulted, he insults back. It's not misogyny, it's self defense.

When you can't argue the issues, you resort to petty lies and halve-truths like this. It's liberal politics 101.

As for racism, a lot of his comments about hispanics are at best borderline.

So, they're not racist then. Glad you came around. Next . . .

But I have a hard time as a white guy telling a hispanic who is legitimately offended by a borderline racist remark that the remark is not racist.

Yes, you've demonstrated you have a hard time grappling with the truth.

Any way you cut it, this guy is a gaping asshole, and has no business being sworn in as President. It's a job for a serious person.

Yeah, Obama's been a complete disaster. I think the American people are willing to accept almost anyone after that clown.

That said, however, I think Trump would be a great president.

Re:Yawn.

[tnk1]

Actually his behavior with Kelly is interesting. While it does have a creepy tone to it, he is working hard to beat the media at their own game. Taking on Kelly is giving him a media target to savage while at the same time, probably has many media people thinking that she never represented them, so they can report the hell out of the attacks on one of their own and not feel guilty.

Trump needs the media, but is trying to show he owns them, not the other way around. That's why he picked one of them to attack and keep attacking, while at the same time, he's remaining someone who gets useful coverage. I doubt that Fox News anchors are high on the media totem pole among their peers, but to everyone else, she's part of the media as much as anyone. In doing this, he's probably ruffled *fewer* feathers than if he took on some one else.

Re:Yawn.

[KGIII]

Funny...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.

You might also be amused/informed/scared shitless by this:
https://trello.com/c/arrNVNIt/...

Oh, an amusing note on the Wikipedia page:

The overwhelming support provided by the liberals has attracted much attention from historians such as Mary McAuliffe (The Journal of American History).

This is worth reading:
https://law.resource.org/pub/u...

It's important to note, and this is from Wikipedia, that this is also true:

Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it.

Further reading and research can be done here:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/gran... (Loading poorly.)
http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~cal... (Loads of good information.)

In other words, you're actually wrong. Now, the odds of it being prosecuted are nil and the US Communist Party exists to this day. But, it is very, very much a FEDERAL CRIME to be a Communist or a member of the Communist Party in the United States. The Nazi party is fair game, however. You can be a Nazi, if you want, but being a communist is right out.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

wanting to keep muslims out until we can figure out a better solution to the refugee problem is not racist (or xenophobic)
 
Yes, it is.
 
The vast majority of rapes are committed by men. Very few men are actual rapists. Nonetheless, we will keep men out of the country until we can figure out a better solution to the penis problem.
 
There have been high-profile cases of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests. We will therefore keep Catholics out of the country until we can figure out a better solution to the pedophilia problem.
 
Nazis have committed genocide, and there are a non-zero amount of European neo-Nazis. We will therefore keep Europeans out of the country until we figure out a better solution to our history problem.
 
Just because you couch bullshit in terms of national security doesn't mean it isn't still bullshit.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Abortion constituting murder is not a law, at least not everywhere.

Your argument currently consists of "if A was illegal, someone who does A is a criminal".

Pro life will say Abortion is Murder. Pto choice will say you can't murder something that was never born / alive.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a public figure. If they're allowed to trademark themselves, it shuts down any form of political satire.

At best, perhaps, they can ask to make sure that the shirts are clear about them not being official.

Be glad he doesn't think Bernie is a National Socialist.

Re: Yawn.

[Type44Q]

I agree with all of the above. However, when he made his kneejerk comment about veterans who "don't get caught by the enemy," is cover slipped and he revealed himself to be the two-dimensional dipshit that he's always been; it's just that we're largely ignorant about the guy which there's absolutely no excuse for as his immoral bullshit is entirely on the record. Racism and mysogeny are entirely orthogonal to the matter; Trump, like virtually all the others, will say what he thinks wants to be heard regardless of whether he himself even believes any of it: he could be a closet rasta who's totally into jungle-love and, just like Billary and Cruz, he'd still be a lying, superficial douche.

Re: Yawn.

[Type44Q]

Thing is, Trump isn't anti-abortion in the least; it's more lies for the benefit of the dipshits who aren't even willing to look-up who their chosen candidate really is.

Re: Yawn.

[Type44Q]

You can be a Nazi, if you want, but being a communist is right out.

That's not at all revealing, is it? ;)

Re:Yawn.

[Xenographic]

> defending a trademark is not bullying.

Sure it is, because it ignores fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Note that political speech is MORE protected than other categories. You can't just trademark your likeness and shut down all political parody or it would soon cease to exist. Imagine for a moment if Bush had been able to use a trademark on his name and likeness to shut down all of the mockeries of him, using your myth of continual enforcement?

> in fact, its required, or else you lose trademark status.

That's a damned, dirty lie. If you'd been reading Slashdot lately, you might've seen this from the EFF:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Libel is a civil tort.

Re:Yawn.

[ganjadude]

as a country its our right to let whoever in for whatever reason (and vice versa)

it doesnt make it racist. just because YOU spin in some bullshit doesnt make it so

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic, a miscarriage should be charged as manslaughter.

Re: Yawn.

[ganjadude]

pretty much, so the point becomes do we listen to the poeple who are career politicians who are trained to lie and care about keeping their jobs over all else

or do we believe this guy who is lying out of his ass (just like the rest of the, ) but doesnt owe anyone in congress a thing?

they are all lying so do we try something new or keep going down the same broken path we have been

Re:Yawn.

[tnk1]

But I have a hard time as a white guy telling a hispanic who is legitimately offended by a borderline racist remark that the remark is not racist.

Any way you cut it, this guy is a gaping asshole, and has no business being sworn in as President. It's a job for a serious person.

First off, I agree. He's a gaping asshole who should not be elected. I also don't believe he will be. So there's that.

However, if racism is a real thing that really happens, and can therefore be combated, it absolutely must be objective enough that an old white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male should be able to identify it for what it is or what it is not. Otherwise, racism is a subjective, slippery term which is useless except for marking someone you in particular don't like.

Mind you, it is possible to be *wrong* about how you characterize a situation. You can be wrong about if something is or is not racist, but you can't simply be wrong because you're white. That's actually smacks of... racism.

It just seems to me that white people have two reasons that we won't comment: discomfort or denial. Those of us who feel uncomfortable with someone turning around and pointing to so-called white privilege tend to just sort of duck the issue by excluding ourselves. And there are those of us who completely deny the existence of racism in our midst. Both are wrong. We should be able to say, "this is racism, and this is not" and just as importantly be able to say, "white people can act in racist ways, but so can everyone else, and it is important that a white person be allowed to have an opinion on what constitutes racism or we have no way to assess ourselves or insist on objectivity in others."

So, if a Hispanic person was to get angry with you for disagreeing with the opinion that a Trump comment is or is not racist, do listen to their viewpoint from their position as the targeted ethnic group, but do not throw away the discussion of an objective standard simply because it makes you uncomfortable. If we don't come to a solid definition that can be applied to blacks, whites, or Asians equally then "racism" is a useless term.

Re:Yawn.

[WrongMonkey]

Try selling an unauthorized T-shirt with Taylor Swift or Kobe Bryant's name and image. Politicians might be more reluctant to enforce their trademarks than other celebrities, but they still have same right to do so.

Re:Yawn.

[T.E.D.]

[link to The Smith Act] which was eventually found to be unconstitutional

Sort of. This is the famous law against "advocating the violent overthrow of the government". The law itself wasn't unconstitutional, and is still on the books. However, it can't be used to throw people in jail just for party affiliation (like was probably intended). SCOTUS held that it has to be an actual specific incitement to violence, not just some distant "come The Revolution" talk.

Re:Yawn.

[drew_kime]

He's over-reacting simply because he remembers how the Tina Fey/Sara Palin thing went down; a lot of low-information voters didn't know the difference what Fey said in character of Palin and what Palin actually said.

That's because what Fey said in character was damn near the exact text of what Palin said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Yawn.

[KGIII]

For the sake of argument, is this really censorship? They're not being prohibited from speaking but are being prohibited from selling. Well, currently they're being threatened with it. I'm of the opinion that Sanders will squash this when it is brought to his attention. This is, currently, lawyers being lawyers.

As for the link that you provided, I've been following that with a bit of attention. That is really disappointing. Germany has some unfortunate regulations surrounding their freedom of speech. I don't think that's really all that similar to this instance, however. This just looks like lawyers being lawyers and will likely be quashed - if it hasn't been already.

Re:Yawn.

[larkost]

You are almost right on all of your points, but miss out on facts:
- It is correct that criticizing Meg Kelly is not in and of itself misogynistic, but asserting that her (valid) question was wrong because she was having her period is.
- Wanting to enforce migration laws more forcefully is not necessarily racist. But Trump has been entirely focused on latin-american immigration, to the exclusion of all else. Mostly he has been talking directly about Mexicans... which is odd since there is a near-zero net migration between the US and Mexico (really, it is slightly tilted in favor of people leaving for Mexico). That was already the trend before President Obama became the most vigorous enforcer of migration laws ever (counting "removals" and "returns", like previous administrations did). Given the singular focus on a specific country of origin which has a neutral net migration rate it is difficult to see this as anything but racist.
- The debate about excluding Muslims has been entirely focused on their religion, to the point where at least one presidential candidate has called for explicitly letting in Syrian Christians while excluding their Muslim neighbors. Our constitution explicitly prohibits the government from having laws that favor or dis-favor any religion. So while it might not be explicitly racist or xenophobic (but the rhetoric makes the latter hard to argue), it is explicitly un-American in the most basic way.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Muslim isn't a race, dipshit.

Not all brown people are Muslim. Not all Muslims are brown.

Fucking racists like you are disgusting.

Re:Yawn.

[schnell]

You can't just trademark your likeness and shut down all political parody or it would soon cease to exist.

Correct. Political parody is explicitly protected as fair comment - this explicit protection was established in the famous Larry Flynt "free speech" trial over a fake ad in Hustler magazine with a fake interview with Moral Majority founder discussing his first sexual encounter as a Campari liqueur fueled romp with his mother in an outhouse. It had nothing to do with Jerry Falwell's trademark/IP rights to his name or likeness, and everything to do with political discourse, of which parody is considered a valid form. Incidentally, parody can be considered "fair use" in most contexts with public figures, not just political ones.

And yet...

Parody for political commentary is protected as part of the public right to discourse. Making money doing so is not. So, no, Bernie Sanders can't sue you for making a picture of him doing bong hits with Che Guevara and posting it online. (Or he could sue, but he wouldn't win, at least on free speech grounds.) But if you started selling the images - then you would run afoul of his personality rights, by which using someone's name or likeness to make money is something he could sue for and win, because money making ventures are considered outside the realm of pure free discourse and becomes "exploitative."

So bottom line - make fun of a political figure with their likeness? No problem. Try to make money doing it? Yeah, problem.

One last note... you don't have to sue anyone and everyone who uses your trademark in order to defend it. You do, however, have to demonstrate that you are defending it in cases where there is a significant likelihood that it may cause confusion. For example, if you trademarked Slurm brand soda, and someone else produced Slurm brand automobiles, you don't have to sue them if you don't plan to make automobiles yourself. You do have to sue if they are infringing on your trademark in an area where you want to say that you hold yourself as having the rights to. (There are some exceptions with really well known brands like Coca Cola, but Apple doesn't have to sue every Apple Fruit Stand or Apple Moving & Storage business in the country because it's not diluting their trademark on computers and electronics.)

Re:Yawn.

[amicusNYCL]

So why haven't these been shut down?

I'm guessing that's because they don't infringe on any trademarks, and also that Trump hasn't threatened those involved. The Bernie shirt in question has his official campaign logo on it, I assume that's the major issue here. It should also be pointed out that the law firm sent the C&D letter without consulting with Bernie or the campaign. And, really, there's not much point in arguing why lawyers send demand letters to people. They could just be trying to show that they are "protecting" the trademark even though a judge would tell them that this is fair use. Just because they would probably lose in a court case, that isn't going to stop a lawyer from issuing threats.

Re: Yawn.

[HornWumpus]

I know your trying to be sarcastic, but you _are_ right.

Re:Yawn.

[fustakrakich]

They're not being prohibited from speaking but are being prohibited from selling.

Yeah, it's still censorship. And in this case they are just using "trademark" as the sledgehammer to kill the message that somebody finds offensive. We shouldn't allow this to happen.

Re: Yawn.

[HornWumpus]

WWII had 1 'ultraconservative' power, Japan. It would be hard to argue about who was actually more 'left', the soviets or the Germans. They both nationalized industries etc. The main difference seams to be who they were talking about when the said 'capitalists', Germans meant 'Jewish Bankers', while Russians meant 'Bankers'.

In WWI all governments involved would be considered ultraconservative by today's standard.

Re:Yawn.

[goose-incarnated]

You are almost right on all of your points, but miss out on facts: - It is correct that criticizing Meg Kelly is not in and of itself misogynistic, but asserting that her (valid) question was wrong because she was having her period is.

Sorry, no - that's not misogynistic. Regardless of the validity of a persons question, making personal attacks is simply that - a personal attack. A personal attack, almost by definition, is not an attack on the group.

Re: Yawn.

[Type44Q]

There certainly lies the dilemma...

Re:Yawn.

[JohnFen]

What Guy believes, how informed he is, how offensive what he did is, or how big of a douchebag he may be is all 100% irrelevant to whether or not what he did is a trademark violation. It seems screamingly obvious to me that this is not such a violation. I can't see how there is any way that people will think that the Sanders campaign produced this, or that there is any risk of dilution.

This is about whether or not the Sanders campaign is going to engage in the abuse of a law to suppress someone saying something they hate. How Sanders handles this is going to mean a lot.

Re:Yawn.

[JohnFen]

Profit != Speech

The guy can make as many of the shirts as he wants. He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.

This makes no sense at all. If the shirts are a trademark violation, then he is unable to distribute them at all, regardless of whether he charges any money for them. If they are not a trademark violation, then he is obviously free to do with them as he likes.

Either way, whether he's doing this for profit or not doesn't affect anything at all.

Re:Yawn.

[JohnFen]

While there is truth there, people think this means that every instance of potential infringement must be prosecuted or the protection is lost.

That is definitely not true.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever. The New Left has been trying to distance themselves from the terms 'socialist' and 'communist' for years now, mainly because their ideology sullied the words as people learned the hard way about the implications of radical collectivist ideology. Now they're doing it to the terms 'liberal' and 'progressive.'

This is just another attempt at that disassociation.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't override political freedom.

Re:Yawn.

[JohnFen]

Freedom of speech does not permit breaking copyright / trademark laws

True. Any law the unconstitutionally infringes on speech is an invalid law. This is why the vast majority of laws, including IP laws, include allowances for protected speech. People using trademarked or copyrighted material as part of protected speech are not breaking trademark or copyright law.

Freedom of speech is not a right to make a profit.

Nor do you lose your freedom of speech because you are engaging in a profit-making enterprise.

Freedom of speech does not exonerate you from defamation.

You will have to define "defamation" here, because I don't see anything in the shirt that looks like it rises to the legal definition. In the first place, how "defaming" the speech has to be to rise to the legal standard is MUCH higher for political figures and celebrities than for the rest of us. In the second place, to be defaming, the speech has to be a statement of fact (vs opinion) that the speaker knows is not true.

These shirts appear to be a clear statement of opinion about an important political figure, thus not defamation.

Oh and Freedom of speech only protects you from your government, not from a private person or corporation, and even within it's scope it does a shit job.

Re:Yawn.

[JohnFen]

Ack. That last sentence was an editing error. Those are not my words.

Re:Yawn.

[JohnFen]

If the shirt was parodying them, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in trademark terms either.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

hey moron, bernie sanders is a senator running for president.. he IS the government.

Re: Yawn.

[JohnFen]

This is true. If the worst thing that Sanders does is to bully someone with trademark, he'd still be an absolute saint compared to the others running.

But still, it would be a mistake for those of us who think Sanders is the best available candidate to let him off the hook about this anyway. Sanders is a politician, and all politicians need their feet held to the fire. Part of what's gone awry in the US is that we've not been very good at that.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rosie is disgusting inside and out. Commenting on someone's appearance isn't misogyny. Not liking someone isn't the same as hate.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

he is a politician acting in his authority as a government agent, both as a senator and as a candidate. He IS open to criticism, parody and otherwise.

Re:Yawn.

[WrongMonkey]

Parody is not an automatic defense. A parody needs to be sufficiently different from the original so it would not be confused with the original. So the question is: could someone look at that t-shirt and mistake it for t-shirt authorized by the trademark holder? Here is a pretty good discussion: https://everythingtrademarks.c...

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

This just looks like lawyers being lawyers and will likely be quashed - if it hasn't been already.

The lawyers may just want a response that claims appropriate use. That way, they can't be accused of idleness when somebody doing something really wrong comes up.

Even just a disclaimer that "This site is not affiliated with Bernie for America" may be all they need to be satisfied.

Re:Yawn.

[JohnFen]

This is true. I was not trying to assert otherwise. I was just assuming that the hypothetical Taylor Swift shirt was sufficiently different, in order to keep the analogy with the Guy shirt.

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently it is, as cited above: Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844)

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You mean it is illegal somehow for me to refer to corn chips made by the Frito-lay company without using the trademarked name? I don't think so.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

as opposed to the people here using the same kinds of technicalities to shield their proto-dear leader from criticism?

1. they call him a misogynist for not being a feminist. this is a false dilemma.
2. they call him racist for not supporting open door immigration. this is also a false dilemma.
3. the only people demanding special treatment by race who also have political and cultural dominance are those in the progressive left. Right now, it's not the kkk we should be concerned about, but these 'social justice' people.

Re: Yawn.

[KGIII]

I kind of pay attention to European politics. How do you figure that he'd be center by European standards? No, he's pretty left - even by European standards. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Though, to be honest, the way that much of Europe has gone about it has resulted in fewer liberties but that's a choice they're free to make.

Re: Yawn.

[KGIII]

I have no idea why they'd want the US to emulate a group of people that bombs themselves into rubble every couple of generations - sometimes more often. If you look at the actions the US has taken, many of them can easily be interpreted as cleaning up after their messes. And yes, that includes the US' activities in the Middle East. The situation there is the result of colonialism and imperialism by the Europeans and then the interventionism done by the League of Nations.

The League of Nations being notable for the distinct lack of US participation - though, oddly, a large number of people seem to think the US was a member. We were not. It's like they think history started in 1990 or something. I guess, that does make it convenient if they want to try to blame others and not accept that their own forefather's are actually the people who caused these conditions. Accountability isn't really seen as a good thing, or so it would seem. People frown on suggesting that people be responsible for themselves. Hopefully, it's a passing fad but I kind of doubt that it is. I also suspect that there were people saying the same thing I'm saying some 1000 years ago.

Re:Yawn.

[thegarbz]

I know. They are my words and perhaps the single most important ones in my entire statement. You could call me names and hurt my feelings and free speech would do nothing to prevent me suing you.

I may not win, but the point is freedom of speech has absolutely zero to do with what at the moment is a trademark dispute between private parties.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

*Never* enforced, according to that article.

Re:Yawn.

[david_thornley]

If the lame* parodies do use a trademark improperly, they should be shut down. They can reissue their stuff without the trademark.

*I'd consider a depiction of a Republican candidate along with Hitler and Mussolini lame also, for those of you who are wondering.

Re: Yawn.

[david_thornley]

Oh, it's really, really easy to argue who was farther left. The Soviets. The Nazis, despite their name, were right-wing. Would you care to name German industries that were nationalized? As a student of the time, I'm not coming up with any. Really, the US War Production Board was much more effective at controlling industry until at least 1944.

Re:Yawn.

[dryeo]

There were other laws such as the Smith act that were enforced as well as a general blacklisting led by the Government, or at least a powerful person in the government. Shit in the late 19th century it wasn't unusual to call out the Militia to put down strikes and such.

Re:Yawn.

[fustakrakich]

This isn't bootlegging, but as long as you don't tell people you believe in free speech, whatever floats yer boat. Have you picked your tribunal to decide what is "lame"? Or is this a unilateral thing?

Re: Yawn.

[nate11000]

I hear this a lot, but wouldn't the alternative just be to sell the guy a license for $1? That would be enforcing your trademark without being a douche.

Re:Yawn.

[sumdumass]

I find this interesting. On one hand, we have someone saying that you are misinterpreting what was said because you are not listing to all of it. On the other, we have someone saying people are always trying to excuse the behavior by bringing up the rest of what was said that gives it context so it is sophistry based on technicalities.

I guess if you wish it hard enough. .. well never mind. I'm sort of at a loss on this.

Re:Yawn.

[Xenographic]

> Political parody is explicitly protected as fair comment - this explicit protection was established in the famous Larry Flynt "free speech" trial [wikipedia.org] over a fake ad in Hustler magazine with a fake interview with Moral Majority founder discussing his first sexual encounter as a Campari liqueur fueled romp with his mother in an outhouse.

> So bottom line - make fun of a political figure with their likeness? No problem. Try to make money doing it? Yeah, problem.

So ... Larry Flynt didn't make any money off of selling that issue of Hustler, or via the infamy it generated?

> Apple doesn't have to sue every Apple Fruit Stand or Apple Moving & Storage business in the country because it's not diluting their trademark on computers and electronics.

Might've wanted to pick a better example due to Apple Records...

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

well apart from the bullying push of all your (not very mainstream, and often insane) opinions on the rest of the world, usually spearheaded by a carrier group.
not sure that counts as "doing our own thing"

Re:Yawn.

[toddestan]

For example, if you trademarked Slurm brand soda, and someone else produced Slurm brand automobiles, you don't have to sue them if you don't plan to make automobiles yourself. You do have to sue if they are infringing on your trademark in an area where you want to say that you hold yourself as having the rights to. (There are some exceptions with really well known brands like Coca Cola, but Apple doesn't have to sue every Apple Fruit Stand or Apple Moving & Storage business in the country because it's not diluting their trademark on computers and electronics.)

The way it works is that made-up words are a stronger trademark than real (already existing) words or names. I couldn't name my car company Yahoo Autos or Coca-Cola Autos, because those are made up words that have been trademarked, but I could start Apple Autos or Phillips Autos. That's why Apple is a pretty weak trademark, though that doesn't stop Apple from trying to sue anyone who uses an apple in their logo.

Re:Yawn.

[silentcoder]

The latter description isn't actually very accurate. Quoting out of context is a fallacy and would be supporting the person if that was the whole story.
My argument is that the rest of what was said did not in fact invalidate the claims based on the original quotes. If anything it made those quotes *worse*.

A typical response from the Trump-supporters would be "he's not a racist because Mexican is not a Race and Muslim is not a race".

The fact that these groups comprise many races rather than just one does NOT, however, make his words and proposed policies any less racist. If it did - white supremacist organisations all over the USA would not be actively encouraging their members to vote for him, and he would have dissavowed them quicker and more forcefully.

And that time he said we should put American Muslims in camps, law-abiding citizens who have never committed a crime, never been convicted, never even been suspected should be locked up just because some other people who happen to share their religion have done some bad things... that was when we started calling him Hitler - because that's exactly what Hitler said in the beginning.

Re:Yawn.

[silentcoder]

>insulting meg kelly is not the same as being a woman hater

Suggesting that abortion-seekers should be punished IS however flagrant misogyny. In fact it's SO misogynistic that no pro-life group or politician in America supports it (which is why he later backtracked).

>wanting to keep illegal immigrants out is not racist
Actually ... yes it is. Of course none of the people who say that think of THEMSELVES as racists, but they are all wrong about that and everybody ELSE dissagrees with their conclusion.

>wanting to keep muslims out until we can figure out a better solution to the refugee problem is not racist (or xenophobic)
Now that really IS racist in the extreme - the most terrible racist acts of the 20th century *all* began with failures to be compassionate towards stateless people.

Re:Yawn.

[silentcoder]

When the personal attack is based on a group-attribute, it's an attack on the whole group.

Re:Yawn.

[silentcoder]

In most countries where abortion is banned - it already is, and very often it gets charged as murder. Just last year Saudi Arabia executed a woman for the crime of having a miscarriage.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't a political cartoonist make money selling his images (likenesses)? How about selling photorealistic images parodying people on magazine covers?

Re:Yawn.

[sumdumass]

I think your need to invent a story line is telling.

But let's explore this placing innocent people in camps concept. If we are basing it on historical representations, wouldn't it be more accurate to call him Roosevelt instead? I mean he is taking about a new deal, a great deal to be exact , a great society, and Roosevelt actually did lock people up in camps specifically because of perceived threats due to ideology and hereditary background. After all, Hitler was doing what he did out of eugenics born conflation and political ideals where Roosevelt - like trump is based on fears of commonalities to known enemies who like Japan have declared war on the U.S..

Lets just look at this logically. Trump if anything is a modern day FDR.

Re: Yawn.

[silentcoder]

Those camps go down as FDR's single worst mistake. Not even the most ardent democrat considers them a good thing. Hell Takei was actually in one, publicly calls them out and has drawn the same paralel as you do. Democrats tend not to imagine their heroes were flawless. FDR was one of the great presidents yet when he issued those orders he fucked up badly. Now compare that to how Reagan-worshippers react when you remind them that their beloved leader committed high treason and even his fall-guy never went to jail.

You are wrong that this is *more* FDR than Hitler though. Hitler's original speeches justified rounding up Jews for exacty the same fears. A vague association with the great Jewish banking families. Which ironically was an utterly tenuous claim since all the Jewish banking families were Sephardic while Jews in Germany were all Azkanazi - a group of largely poor and struggling people with no significant political or economic power or any real ties to their wealthier cousins that entered Europe via Spain 200 years before them.
Nearly everyone in FDR's camps walked out again. Hardly anybody in Hitler's camps did. Both claimed right to the end that they all would. Hell Hitler's second in command still claimed they did at nuremburg when the camps had been found and the evidence presented.
How much are you willing to bet that Trump promising they will walk out again is the former and not the latter ?
More importantly: what would you be willing to bet if you were one of them ?

It can never be anything but evil if those numbers are not the same. Every religion on earth teaches that and atheists recognize it as foundational and universal to morality: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Anytime you are willing to subject somebody to an experience you would not want to be subjected to yourself you have become unadulterated evil. All evil acts have that in common and no argument can redeem it nor any threat justify it. Jesus recognized it. Budha recognized it. Muhammed said the same thing. Even Richard Dawkins have called it the morality evolution bred into us to ensure survival and which rationality demands (though I would argue he is failing to live up to his own ideals sometimes but nobody does that perfectly).
Would you be okay if somebody suggested locking up in camps a group that includes you because some people who claim to be members have done bad things even though your group have dissavowed them repeatedly and raised more money for their victims than all other charities combined ? (Bet you didnt know that Muslim charities have raised more money to help terorist victims than all others combined).
Would you ?

If you would consider that an injustice if done to you then you are pure unadulterated evil if you fail to protest any and every person (especially those seeking political office) who woud suggest doing it to anybody else. Even if you love everything else they say and hate every other candidate. That should be an insurmountable difference or you are no different than Rudolph Hess at best.I look forward to seeing your anti-Trump poster.

Re:Yawn.

[dave420]

You didn't provide sources. Singling out a religion is entirely xenophobic, and panders to ignorance in order to get votes, at the expense of human beings.

But I'm sure you have some mental hoops you can jump through to make Trump some reasonable person in your mind.

Re:Yawn.

[ganjadude]

no it is not, nor has it ever been.

that is simply a new tactic being used by the political correct to try and style speech

instead of complaining about the actions that were so outrageous that they warrant the use of strong language, people are attacking the person who called out the people instead of the actions of those. perfect example would be the mike brown case. i cant tell you how many times the story devolved into calling people racists for calling mike brown a thug or an animal. yet the facts show he robbed a store and tried to take a gun from a cop, yet it is our choice of words that are the problem, not the criminal act.

enough with the bullshit, lets stop this shit in its tracks

if i call you retarded for X, that is not an attack on all mentally handicapped people. enough is enough

Re:Yawn.

[ganjadude]

you really need to learn what things mean and stop trying to change the meanings because you did not say one thing that is factual here

Re:Yawn.

[dave420]

If the reason is based purely on race, it is racist by definition. If it's based on some vague characteristic shared by "them", it's xenophobic, and *possibly* racist (as 'race' is a nebulous term lacking a strict definition). You can't argue this away - these are the definitions of the words.

Re: Yawn.

[MachineShedFred]

Really.

I completely forgot about all those times we threatened to move the Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group into the North Sea if Brussels if they didn't do what they were told. And I also completely forgot about how France had been a full participant in the completely misguided war in Iraq in 2003 - no wait, that's right - they completely abstained and said it was stupid and unnecessary. And then we bombed Paris... no, that didn't happen either.

I think it's clear why you posted that drivel as Anonymous Coward.

Re:Yawn.

[david_thornley]

"Lame" is an editorial comment here. I don't like the poster or whatever, but that's irrelevant. We all have the right to say stupid and hateful things. This also includes commenting on stuff that you haven't bothered to understand, fortunately for you.

As I said, improper use of a trademark is grounds for shutting something down. I don't know if it is going on, but if it is the people responsible need to reissue their lame stuff without the trademark. Or, ideally, just drop it, but that's not legally required and should not be.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Oh, sure - communists were definitely unfairly persecuted at many levels of government, but that specific law wasn't used to do it. Which really makes you wonder why they passed it in the first place.

Re:Yawn.

[fustakrakich]

We all have the right to say stupid and hateful things.

This is true

This also includes commenting on stuff that you haven't bothered to understand, fortunately for you.

:-) Very funny

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

firstly, democracy has nothing to do with speech - the constitution does
secondly free speech explicitly exists to give the freedom of criticism, if people didn't support the criticism it would have no legs. Just because you think something is dumb or irritates you it doesn't mean it is "undemocratic"

Re:Yawn.

[cyberchondriac]

firstly, democracy has nothing to do with speech - the constitution does secondly free speech explicitly exists to give the freedom of criticism, if people didn't support the criticism it would have no legs. Just because you think something is dumb or irritates you it doesn't mean it is "undemocratic"

Beside the fact that you're being rather pedantic here, you've utterly missed what I'm saying is "undemocratic". And I suspect you know it. What irritates me is that
A) Leftists aren't just criticizing the opposition, as they are free to do, now they're trying to actually shut it down and silence it - that is, free speech that they don't agree with. Shouting people down in protests, blocking the streets, labeling as "hate speech" anything they don't like. Not cool.

B) Hypocrisy: There's a high level of hypocrisy in all the name calling and insulting they regularly deliver, as I illustrated upthread. Hey, It's hilarious to call Chris Christie a stupid fat whale of a lard-ass, isn't it? Or to compare W. Bush to a chimp, or the thinly veiled "lipstick on a pig" comment for Palin. Hah, all in good fun, right? Well, that's free speech, yes. But if a republican or libertarian makes the same kind of off color remark, why that's politically incorrect! It's denounced as "hate speech" and there's a huge push to have it stopped and shut down.

Re:Yawn.

[AK Marc]

Nope. Selling things that could be confused with endorsements is illegal. You are campaigning for him, and making a profit doing it. If he doesn't address it, he could be committing a felony.

They know they have no legal ground but sue as a bullying tactic. Sad.

The Bernie campaign didn't sue anyone. When your hate is so large you can't even English, you need to seek help. The site was doing something illegal. The Bernie campaign asked them to stop.

The site is claiming that being asked to stop doing something obviously illegal is bullying. The site is run by the bullies and idiots.

Re:Yawn.

[AK Marc]

Also note, Expendables (or one of the sequels) was delayed for an election cycle for The Governator. Appearing in a movie in a campaign cycle was deemed to be a promotion. So 3rd party non-political uses of likenesses has been ruled to be political in election times. So someone selling Bernie's likeness could get Bernie in prison for election fraud. So it'd be stupid for him to not shut down their illegal operation.

Political speech (As in the speech of and by politicians) is one of the most regulated speeches. Mainly to legalize bribes, but also to present the appearance of fairness.

Re:Yawn.

[AK Marc]

It is in this case. licensing and permitting it would be officially making them part of the Bernie Sanders' campaign. Given how they've operated so far, that'd land Bernie in prison. He has to shut them down because they are engaging in a political action in a campaign cycle without meeting the appropriate laws.

Re:Yawn.

[AK Marc]

Anti trump shirts wouldn't be considered part of his campaign. A pro-Bernie shirt from a well-meaning supporter is a campaign activity. As such, it is regulated by election law, and if the seller doesn't folllow that law, Bernie can go to prison.

Do you see the difference now?

And you places yourself as a pro-trump idiot. Why didn't you point to the anti Hillary shirts at Cafepress? There many of those. There are even anyi-Bernie shirts on CafePress, and Bernie hasn't gone after them. Because allowing them wouldn't get him put in prison.

The idiots on Slashdot think they know Fair Use and don't know any other laws, and complain that because their wrong opinion on Fair Use isn't used, everyone else is wrong.

Re:Yawn.

[AK Marc]

So, trying to comply with election law is a sign of government oppression? By whom? The Republicans who passed the laws?

Re:Yawn.

[eric_harris_76]

Also, Streisand Effect. http://duckduckgo.com?q=streis...

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Trump isn't defending his trademark, doesn't mean Sanders should not defend his.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The US Constitution has exactly ZERO governmental rights for pushing political ideologies or economic systems, (except that they are supposed to afford us due process before depriving us of property or liberty).
So, all this anti-leftist, anti-communist bullcrap that has cost the US taxpayer trillions over the years, as well as HUAC and other fascist witch hunts, have all been pretty much unconstitutional, unamerican hucksterism that the hoi polloi fell for, paid for, and lived in fear of.
Well done, hyper-elite assholes at the helm of the failing state.

Re: Yawn.

[KGIII]

LOL We *really* hated the Communists. To be fair, the Communists, of the day, were also expansionists. And totalitarian. And murderous. And it was *after* WWII and we, the United States, lost our Innocence in WWII. We had the thin veil of innocence left after WWI. WWI was when chivalry died, after all. We came in at the tail end of it and, though folks don't like to admit it, really did help to turn the tide and change the outcome - making it more certain and much quicker.

But, in WWII was when we really lost our innocence. WWII is when we also came out as a definite superpower. So, after that we also lost some of our ideology. That ideology went right out the window when it came to The Red Scare. We, by which I mean our government and generally supported by our citizens, decided a whole bunch of liberties were worth scaling back, just a little and just for those damned pinko scum, and the rest is history. It's not that things were ever really as great as we like to think but they were certainly different.

With the Cold War we infringed on our liberties concerning speech, religion, political beliefs, due process, search and seizure, and self-incrimination. And we, the citizens, cheered them on! It's okay, we idiots did the same thing after 9/11 and some still do. Look at all the people who champion the idea that we need to completely disarm the citizenry. What's funny is that many of those people scream about freedoms and how they're staunch supporters of it - they'll even squawk about freedoms when it comes to the latest trend in banning encryption. I am not actually sure what sort of mental gymnastics they must be doing in order to hold those views.

"So what if something bad happens. We have a right to create a lock the government can't open!"
"People are hurt by firearms every day, we need to take them from people."

In my eyes, those are diametrically opposed views. I tried to make them both as honest as I could, by the way. It's intellectually dishonest to misrepresent them but it is tempting to do so. Ah well... I'm taking a break from playing with PHP - that's what's kept me busy lately. The site is actually getting a bit of traffic. Not much in the way of participation - even though it can be done anonymously. Hopefully that changes as I spend less time working on it and more time adding content. Building it is quite a bit of fun, though. So, I have a good time while building and relearning a lot and learning new things. If nothing else, it has been keeping me both occupied and entertained. So, there's that.

Re:Yawn.

[shutdown -p now]

Sure, it's your right. But your motivations for exercising said right in any particular case may be driven by xenophobia, and in this case, they are.

Re:Yawn.

[goose-incarnated]

When the personal attack is based on a group-attribute, it's an attack on the whole group.

1) An actual attack on an entire group may or may not be "hate against that group" - it's fairly possible to attack an entire group without actually hating that group. For example, affirmative action laws target particular groups for exclusion and yet are not considered bigotry.

and even if point 1) above was not true (which it is)...

2) An individual attack based on characteristics particular to a certain group in no way implies hate for all members of that group. It's why we are able to called people "dickheads" without being accused of misandry. It's why we are able to call people bitches without being called "misogynists".

Which leads me on to point....

3) Misogyny: 1. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women, or prejudice against women.

You'll have to squint really hard to turn what is basically "This individual is PMSing" into "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of all women". To be honest, you're well into over-sensitive territory if you read "PMS" the same as "nigger", "chink", etc...

Re:Yawn.

[cyberchondriac]

Attempting to silence people whose political views you disagree with is attempting to comply with election law?

Re: Yawn.

[silentcoder]

If you can't see how suggesting that somebody's behaviour is caused by them PMS-ing is flagrantly sexist and ibsulting to all people with uterusses then you are pretty seriously misoginystic yourself and apparently blind to that fact.

Re:Yawn.

[AK Marc]

Who said anyone "disagreed" with the guy illegally selling campaign propaganda?

This isn't even a story.

[neonedge]

It's called branding, and any public figure needs to control their brand regardless of how honest or honorable the offender might declare themselves. You can't just let people do whatever they want with your brand, even if that brand is yourself. Otherwise Trump will do it as the precedent has been set. Really, some T-Shirt guy is mad because he's trying to profit off of something he has no right to? This isn't even a story.

Re:This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called freedom of speech. Might want to look it up sometime.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[DNS-and-BIND]

So it was OK when they called Trump literally Hitler, but a work of satire calling Sanders a Marxist isn't OK? How does that even work? Free speech for me, but not for thee?

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because democratic socialist has huuuuge difference from marxism

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the logo! Read the Demand Letter. The logo is trademarked. What part of that don't you understand?

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

The First Amendment thinks t-shirt guy has a right to do what he's doing. Trademark law agrees, aggressive claim letter by shysters notwithstanding.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they simply called Sanders a Marxist, that would be fine. I suspect Trump would have had the same kind of reaction if this guy sold t-shirts of Trump and Hitler being all friendly and shit.

Free Speech for me, and you, but you don't get to commercialize someone else for your own pocket change.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[sabbede]

It's parody. A common exception to copyright protections.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[silentcoder]

Nobody has called Trump "literally Hitler" - since that would be physically impossible. Identical speeches ? Also echoed in the speeches of the only NAZIs to every actually run a country for an extended period of time WITHOUT being at war (notably Verwoerd, Botha and Vorster's) speeches. Identical proposals and policies to not-yet-in-power Hitler ?
Entire speeches that could have been quoted from Mein Kampf ?

Literally Hitler ? No.
As close as makes no fucking difference ? Only somebody who is utterly ignorant of history could fail to see it.

But then - ALL NATIONALISM is Nazism, the NAZIs abandoned the socialist part of their name long before they ever even got in power - hell during their failed coup attempt in 1921 they killed all the socialists in parliament before being thrown out. The very first thing they did after president Hitler declared himself Fuhrer was to kill every socialist in parliament (again) - 400 people executed in a single night.
But the nationalism - they clung to that. All nationalism is 100% absolutely and utterly inexcusable evil. And it's an evil no less prevalent in the United States than it was in Germany.
Those who love their country, and associate that love with a specific nation - are doomed to repeat ALL the worst evils humanity have visited on one another because with zero exceptions it was ALWAYS nationalism that drove it. It was Nationalism that drove appartheid (hell the party doing it was even called the "National Party"). It was Nationalism that drove the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Nationalism that exploded in the genocide in Serbia under Milosovich.

There is no version of Nationalism, especially ethno-Nationalism that has ever or could ever fail to lead to atrocity. All nationalists are Hitler WANABES. Nearly none of them know it. They seem to only ever figure that out AFTER they did something fucking terrible.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, in conclusion, it IS ok to call Trump Hitler, but not OK to call Sanders a Marxist. I'm glad you could clear that up for us. Free speech for me, but not for thee.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about trademarks today, not copyright.

Re:This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

no, it's not.
it's called trademark law.
you look it up.

Re:This isn't even a story.

[Hognoxious]

It's called trademark law. Might want to look it up sometime.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[dywolf]

yes, it is, actually.
you're quite right on that point.
in fact, the term is really a bit of a misnomer.

what it is is a political system that combines democracy and free trade with a strong welfare state, attempting to achieve the best of both worlds using the best parts of each, while correcting for the inadequacies of each. separately they have strengths and weaknesses. combines, they compensate for each's weakness and makes the whole stronger.

the problem comes from simpletons like you who cannot understand the difference between an economic model and a political model, and the shades of grey between them as no pure -ism can stand in actual practice.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[dywolf]

Yes.
Because Trump actually does mimic Hitler, which any student of history can see, whereas Sanders bears no resemblance to anything Marxist, except in the eyes of fools like you.

and its not a free speech issue.
do we really need to discuss the whole "only applies to government" thing again?
it didn't go well for you last time.

Re:This isn't even a story.

[KingOfBLASH]

I can't believe this was modded up! Talking about public figures (which includes people who are trying to get elected president) and commentary about their policy is a form of free speech. Additionally, parody and satire are protected forms of speech.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

The exception for parody exists in trademark as well. Quit being butt hurt and stop and think of how many times popular trademarks have been parodied by comedians.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

And where was your law degree from? Back of a cereal box?

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, history education in the US must be terrible.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[fustakrakich]

Free speech for me, but not for thee?

Trump seems to believe so

Re:This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "parody" and has a rich history in the face of both trademark and copyright. Look it up.

Now, you can argue that those who produce this may not be seeing it as parody but I guess that's no different than the legions of morons who still think that Sarah Palin actually said she could see Russia from her house when it was, in fact, said by a comedian doing a parody of Palin. But don't let the facts stop you from cawing on about stupid crap.

Re:This isn't even a story.

[Travelsonic]

Believe it or not, parody IS a defense for alleged trademark infringement, not just copyright.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[silentcoder]

Can never be slander: "Jack wants to kill his wife"
Can be slander: "Jack is killing his wife".

Calling Trump Hitler is not accusing him of a crime. Ergo it cannot be slander. It is, at most, saying his speeches advocate policies that would be criminal but thats still free speech.
Calling Sanders a Marxist is a crime because you are accusing him falsely of engaging in criminal behaviour.

Even so there is no evidence to suggest Sanders would sue or prosecute you for doing so. He has not sued Fox which did that a few times.
However if you want to do it its okay for him to say 'but you cannot use my own trademarks to do it'. Parody is not protected if its also slanderous.
And there is not even any evidence he has done that. All you have is a lawyer who did that without consulting him.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[MachineShedFred]

Has anyone actually called Trump 'Hitler' ? Or have they just called him a fascist?

There's actual legitimacy to calling him a fascist, and even more in calling him a proto-fascist, because he says proto-fascist things into cameras and microphones on a regular basis. One could define fascism as:

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

The first part fits Trump's campaign perfectly: "Make America Great Again" and talking about how we don't win anymore, and how every other country is getting over on us, how countries send us all their 'losers' etc. is a de facto obsession with community decline. One could make an argument that deporting 11 million people is a move towards 'purity' and 'unity'. Trump has made many statements where he would like to curtail freedom of speech, and freedom of the press when it comes to the expansion of libel laws, which meets the definition of abandoning democratic liberties.

Basically all that is missing is the militant nationalistic violence and statements of external expansion from Trump himself, but there's plenty of his supporters that are more than willing to sign up for the violence - just see any of the stories lately about the brawls at his rallies.

Note that I am not calling Trump a fascist, or even a proto-fascist: I'm simply pointing out that there is evidence to support such claims. That being said, I'm very fearful that we're going to end up with a Trump / Hillary decision in November, where the end result is that the United States will be the loser in such an election.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to double check with your lawyer. If you go out and say I wanted to kill somebody, you can be damn sure I'm going to sue you for slander. And I'll probably win. Slander is anything that is untrue which hurts a persons reputation that is stated as fact. There's limits of course in cases of parody and such. A proper example of something that isn't slander would be "in my opinion, I think jack wants to kill his wife". You've not qualified that it is not fact, but an opinion, and as such is no longer slander.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[budgenator]

Personally I wouldn't piss in Sander's mouth if his teeth were on fire, but in this case the dirbag's lawyers are correct at least in that the similarities of Sander's trademarked logo's and Liberty maniac's use of nearly identical logo's is actionable and trademark laws don't allow them the opportunity to not take action without putting their marks in jeopardy.

It's not a copyright thingy it's a trademark thingy and trademarks are very different legally; there is no parody exception to trademark law, in fact trademark exists to prevent parody and derivative works from being confused with the authentic articles.

Re:This isn't even a story.

[Overzeetop]

Yes, it is a defense. It is NOT a by-rights use. If you're going to poke a sleeping bear, you have to be ready to fight when he wakes up.

Re:This isn't even a story.

[cyberchondriac]

While you're at it, look up "fair use".

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

weak! using your definition, what about the times when trump was called a nazi? i could replace marxist with nazi and sanders with trump and you have a problem on your hands.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

People have compared Trump to Hitler, because certain elements of Trump's campaign resemble the way Hitler came to power, including the fact that he was first ridiculed and not taken seriously by the establishment and then suddenly rose in popularity. Even Trump's campaign picture on CNN is (intentionally, such things are not made by mistake) styled after old propaganda pictures of Hitler. Trump even deliberately introduced this Hitler greeting of allegiance in order to get additional publicity and mock the establishment (again, such things are not made by accidents). The comparison is still wrong and misleading, of course, on the one hand because Trump does not share any Hitler's ideology and is in fact just a plain old capitalist with moderately conservative views, and on the other hand because the circumstances in the US are not even remotely as bad as in Germany when Hitler came to power. (The US is not undergoing a crisis like the crash of 1929, nor does it have to pay reparations to France for the next 90 years.) To put this into perspective, nothing about Sanders even remotely indicates that he is a Marxist and his campaign is also totally different from the way communists do their propaganda -- which is kind of obvious, since he's an established US senator.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

All nationalists are Hitler WANABES.

So, people who like (for example) the fact that their country is superior to a neighboring country (say the neighboring country makes it legal to throw homosexuals off of rooftops), and wants to protect their country from being slowly turned into that gay-killing country next door ... they're evil Hitler-wannabes? Are you even listening to yourself?

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Solandri]

You're misconstruing Nationalism as the cause. Nationalism is a symptom. When a people feel marginalized or threatened by outsiders, it stirs up Nationalism. With the Nazis, it was the Treaty of Versailles which forced Germany to pay reparations for damages to other WWI combatants. That exacerbated the global depression in Germany, eventually leading to the Nazi party winning the plurality of votes and seats in the 1932 election. In Rawanda it was the Arusha Accords which was negotiated by multiple outside powers as a way for the majority Hutus to share power with the minority Tutsi - a group they'd formerly been at war with.

People in a country have to feel that they're deciding their own fates to accept change. When they feel their fate is being determined by outsiders somehow exerting influence or forcing conditions onto them, it will stir up nationalism. That is the true cause. Currently in the U.S., it's manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas faster than those former workers could adapt and retrain for new jobs, and the spectre of illegal immigrants being made citizens so they can vote.

As well intentioned as your social engineering project may be, and no matter how great the improved economic efficiency from offshoring, you have to make those changes at a slow enough pace so as not to make a large segment of the population feel that they're losing control of their own country. In that respect, the early stages of Nationalism are healthy - they provide a moderating force which steers the country away from such quick political change, giving people time to get used to the idea of that change and adapt. But criticizing it and demonizing it as you're doing will just radicalizes it and makes it flare up worse. Which is eventually what allows the Hitlers to come into power.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not disagreeing, just curious what your alternative version of the world is.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[silentcoder]

Every people feels marginalized and or threatened at some point, hell it's perfectly possible to feel that way without any actual cause while being the most powerful group in the most powerful country on earth - just ask Trump's supporters.

But you seem to be seriously ignorant of history:
The NAZIs never once won a plurality of votes. Their 1921 coup failed because they lacked sufficient support to keep the capitol. By 1929, under the effects of the depression (and with quite a lot of Hitler-youth) coming of age they won a grand-total of 19 seats in parliament, the only seats they ever won in an election. At this stage in Germany about 90% of all votes were divided between the mainstream rightwing and mainstream leftwing party (with about 45% each) and the other 10% divided among various small fringe parties. The best electoral success the NAZIs ever got was to be the biggest of the fringe parties. At this point the mainstream rightwing party tried to neutralize Hitler's rhetoric by giving him the presidency - a largely ceremonial post with no real power (the chancelor held that) but it was hoped it would keep him happy and quiet. Then the chancelor died. One of the powers the president DID hold is appointing the chancelor's successor should he die in office. Hitler then appointed himself (exploiting a loophole in the constitution) and subsequently combined the two offices into the single office of Fuhrer. Then he got rid of his difficulties in parliament by killing all the leftwing politicians (which rapidly got the rightwingers to change to the NAZI party). In a matter of weeks a minority fringe party had seized absolute power in Germany.

The Hutus and the Tutsis were not at war in the past - they didn't even EXIST in the past. They are not two distinct ethnic groups. This artificial grouping was literally CREATED by the French colonial powers who gave the Tutsi (selected on the basis of "tallest") endless privileges and opportunities while oppressing the Hutus. The Hutus eventually got sick and tired of the Tutsi's continuing economic power (because the fall-out of such an unequal society doesn't just disapear when you remove the colonists) and decided to murder them all (egged on by talk radio hosts). Everything else is political theater - THAT was the crux of the problem, a nationalist revolt against people who were - in fact - part of their OWN nation.

Now if you are so badly informed about the history under discussion - why do you think you are right about nationalism ? Nationalism made a sort of weird sense when the Huns practiced it, or the Romans, or the Vikings... but it was barbaric then and it is barbaric now. It will always be barbaric and it will always lead to barbaric outcomes.
The biggest mistake we made in the 20th century was devolving the enforcement of human rights to nation-states, and in so doing basically depriving all human rights from anybody who finds themselves stateless. This is the plight of the refugees Trump fears so much - made stateless by the war in their country. It's the plight of the Palestinians driven from their homeland by Jews who were, at the time, themselves stateless and desperately trying to establish one.
As Jewish scholar Hanah Arendt pointed out back then - to solve one statelessness crisis by causing another will lead to an endless, unwinnable war and terrible hardship that will breed terrorism and violence. She was right on every single count.

Nations, and indeed Countries, are a relic of ancient ideas which simply do not FIT in the 21st century. The next step to a better world can ONLY consist of the abolition of both. Eventually, it will happen - history has been inexorably heading that way for 2000 years, it is not a process that can be stopped. You can either accept it and enjoy it and look forward to it... or you can try to fight against it, which everyone who does it ends up killing a lot of innocent people and inevitably failing anyway. America will be no more successful at fighting the current of history than the Islamic lead

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Calling Sanders a Marxist is a crime because you are accusing him falsely of engaging in criminal behaviour.

I didn't realize being Marxist was a crime now.

What should we do about California? Maybe just build a wall around it and make it into a prison colony?

Re: This isn't even a story.

[WrongMonkey]

You can call Trump literally Hitler. That's free speech.

You can print an article calling Trump literally Hitler. That's free press.

But if you make and sell a T-shirt with Trump's image and a Hitler mustache, now you're profiting from the unauthorized use of a trademarked image. That's no more protected than selling unauthorized t-shirts with the image of a band or sports team.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[amicusNYCL]

Were comedians selling shirts with trademarked logos on them?

However, courts may consider the possibility of confusion in analyzing whether a use is fair or not. Intent to show confusion is also relevant; hence, the general rule that no more of the trademark should be used than necessary for the legitimate purpose.

The lawyers could certainly try to argue that the guy selling the shirts was attempting to confuse people and make them think that it was an official use of the trademarked logo. The guy would then try to argue that the satire was "obvious". A judge would probably roll his eyes and wonder why the hell he's dealing with this crap.

Re:This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Making fun of political figures is protected speech. Using their own campaign symbol as a parody is entirely legitimate.

The legal test as to whether something constitutes infringement is whether it might seem "confusing". No one would confuse this use as actually being something connected to the Sanders campaign

Re: This isn't even a story.

[fnj]

the NAZIs abandoned the socialist part of their name long before they ever even got in power

Now you're just making stuff up. The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party) never "abandoned" the Socialist "part" or any other part of their name. They remained the NSDAP until the end. It was rather the other way round. There was briefly a minor precursor party BEFORE its foundation, called the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Workers' Party), and it was from this that the NSDAP was formed.

If I may be allowed to presume, I believe what you meant to say is that the NSDAP never really "believed in" or "practiced" "true" socialism, and that is an arguable point, though on balance I am not persuaded that the claim has much meaning. Socialism is a term representing a RANGE of economic and social systems wherein the means of production is held and controlled in common for the welfare of the people; as well as subsidiary political ideologies and theories. One of the tenets of Germany under the NSDAP was indeed the provision of various social welfare measures and programs.

You could as well claim that Germany under the NSDAP never "really" embraced "true" capitalism, yet that claim is never heard, because it is meaningless and misses the point - just like the claim in regards to socialism.

What they really and truly did do was to abandon democratic processes (elections and governmental debate, basically), and adopt a cult of personality wherein Adolf Hitler was Chancellor and Leader (Fuehrer) commanding personal loyalty and obedience from all for the duration.

As an aside, it is indeed sad that in the US almost all of the proponents of socialism run like scared rabbits from the very term "socialist". It says something about their lack of backbone and their utter failure to control the loaded taint of the word, which they fear so much.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[fnj]

Calling Sanders a Marxist is a crime because you are accusing him falsely of engaging in criminal behaviour.

In what strange reality is being a Marxist ipso facto "engaging in criminal behavior"?

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can never be slander: "Jack wants to kill his wife"

Of course that can be slanderous. You're probably confusing opinion (which isn't defamatory) with factual representation of desire (which is defamatory if it meets the elements of defamation such as falsity, made to a third party, etc.).

"Jack wants to kill his wife" if said to someone other than Jack, if it's not true, and if it harms Jack's reputation, is defamatory. Slander if spoken (or, put another way, "published in transient form"); libel if printed.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[sumdumass]

Lol.. again its different how?

Or did you drink the cool aid and think the trump Hitler thing is real?

Re: This isn't even a story.

[sumdumass]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Which is good because there seems to be an even stronger protections for fair use.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright and trademark aren't the same thing at all, armchair lawyer.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[silentcoder]

I didn't say they changed their name - I said they abandoned the socialism DESPITE it being in their name. I can see that the sentence was ambiguous though so your misunderstanding is understandable.

Now as for what they practised economically: it was fascism - which is a form of capitalism invented by Hitler's great hero Musolinni who, himself, preferred to call it "corporatism". Not all that different in fact from modern-day USA except without the sham elections. My point wasn't about "true" socialism - it was that Hitler despised everything remotely related to socialism (the idea of welfare as socialist didn't even exist in those days that's a post-Reagan idea). The biggest evidence of Hitler's feelings about socialism is that the very first people he killed was all the socialists in parliament.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[sabbede]

Did I mix up copyrights and trademarks again? It happens sometimes.

Still, the parody/satire exceptions (fair use) apply.

From the American Bar Association: "The fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism or comment is not an infringement of copyright." (https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf)

And if you're thinking "that's still copyrights you jerk", it still applies. "Many courts have applied the traditional likelihood of confusion test to parodies. Even though parody is not a defense to a claim of trademark infringement, courts have noted in the context of the likelihood of confusion test (either as a separate factor or in relation to the other factors) that a successful parody will rarely be considered infringing," Since nobody is going to think the shirts are from the Sanders campaign, and the defendant isn't running for president and trying to trick Sanders supporters into voting for him instead, the suit will fail.

Re: This isn't even a story.

[budgenator]

Sanders has this logo with a 5 pointed star for the dot over the I and two waves underneath, if they had left out the two waves, there would be no problem.

Bad lawyers

[Bruce66423]

"He wrote in the blog that that lead counsel for the Sanders campaign told him that Garvey, Schubert, Barer sent the demand letter without any consultation with the Sanders campaign."

If that's the quality of advisers that Sanders is attracting, he's got a problem with his ability to identify good staff.

Re:Bad lawyers

[drinkypoo]

If that's the quality of advisers that Sanders is attracting, he's got a problem with his ability to identify good staff.

Now find us some good lawyers.

Re:Bad lawyers

[Yokaze]

I would say, in that regard, he has good staff. They said, they acted on their own. As the record stands, Sanders can rightfully claim innocence in the matter, and they would possibly take all the blame, if it goes wrong.

Re: Bad lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha ha. Even lawyers have heard of respondeat superior.

Re:Bad lawyers

[MachineShedFred]

So if they didn't consult with the campaign, does that mean they are without cause? Are they retained in any way by the campaign, or have any standing whatsoever to act on their behalf?

Re:Bad lawyers

[MachineShedFred]

Except that if the campaign denies association with this claim, then the filing attorney has no cause, and the suit will be thrown out. This whole thing is bizarre.

Re:Bad lawyers

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Indeed, it's called "plausible deniability", a term coined by the CIA in 1948.

Re:Bad lawyers

[rahvin112]

Lawyers tend to do anything that will generate billable hours if they aren't leashed to seek permission before taking action. Particularly given the majorly huge surplus in lawyers that exists right now. This will only get worse as the years go on because law schools are still graduating far too many lawyers for any of them to actually have jobs without lawyers doing stuff like this to generate billable hours. The Sanders campaign should be smart enough to realize this and put a leash on the lawyers that says you don't do anything without asking first.

Re:Bad lawyers

[Agripa]

I am sure they have a form letter for when a unwarranted and malicious legal action is taken and the subject resists creating bad publicity. The buck does *not* stop with Bernie Sanders.

Re:Bad lawyers

[Agripa]

Oh, and I would consider this an excellent qualification for president. The President should have the best plausible deniability available to him.

Slashdot's double standards strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of posts here defending Sanders. I guarantee that if Trump's campaign did anything like this, Slashdot would be crucifying Trump. Of course, Trump doesn't do those things at all. He's happy to argue with anyone and take whatever punches are thrown his way. For a candidate who has a lot of support from nerds, Sanders sure does like to abuse trademark law and the DMCA.

Re: Slashdot's double standards strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

As I write this there are two comments defending Sanders. Is that "a lot" in your world?

Re: Slashdot's double standards strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a trump supporter, so counting to two is really high for him.

Re:Slashdot's double standards strike again

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, Trump doesn't bother with laws and courts. He simply encourages his supporters to get violent against those he doesn't like, translating metaphorical punches into physical ones.

Smear Campaign In Full Swing

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Hillary's campaign to "Disqualify and Defeat" Bernie has finally reached Slashdot.
Way to propaganda, guys.

Re: Smear Campaign In Full Swing

[Anonymous Coward]

Is being a communist a bad thing? If so, how do you distinguish his single-payer healthcare and schooling schemes from communism? And why do you think that web site that carries "Hillary for Prison 2016" is doing her bidding?

Re: Smear Campaign In Full Swing

[Anonymous Coward]

By your 'logic' Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, public schools, police, firefighters and libraries are also 'communist'. Dumbfucks like you is why America can't have nice things. Please to get an education sir.

Re: Smear Campaign In Full Swing

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think those things are communism and that being a communist is a good thing, then? Why should Sanders complain about being labeled one, dumbfuck?

How the hell

[Anonymous Coward]

is he a bad person for not wanting some opportunitist to earn a quick buck on shifting t-shirts with Bernie's face propped up next to communist leaders? Would you be fine with someone putting your face next to Hitler's on t-shirts and earning money off of it? If not, why should Bernie be? Because he's a public figure?

Re:How the hell

[Plus1Entropy]

Because he's a public figure?

Yes.

Re:How the hell

[MachineShedFred]

Guess what: the legal issue has nothing to do with the likeness of Sanders being depicted next to historical communist leaders. The issue is with the improper use of the trademarked "Bernie" logo.

The imagery is free speech, and any judge worth wearing the robe would say "too fucking bad" to any legal action brought about on that. The trademark infringement, however, may be a legit legal question.

I smell a rat

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone

Has anyone trademarked the White House yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

methinks someone ought to trademark the White House, else some chicom may 'steal the IP'

Re: Has anyone trademarked the White House yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just talking to my friend about this at lunch. About how the delegates abs superdelegates and such and the media is constantly updating us on the scores of how many candidates each has and so on, and the polls always trying to predict it. And how it would be so much easier if politician parties were banned and anyone with x amount of signature could get on the ballot and it was decided by runoff election, like in most civilized nations.

But no, American politics is as much a sport as American football (not real football by the way)

Sure, let's pretend it's "just a prank, bro"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all an anti-Bernie political insinuation.

Re:Sure, let's pretend it's "just a prank, bro"

[cyberchondriac]

Well, duh. They exist on both sides. Would you have any problem with a vendor if they did this with Trump, Cruz, or Bush? (and other places are doing just that). This isn't Trademark abuse, this is fair use.

Communism

[ThatBeDank]

Gotta make sure comrade Sanders gets his cut!

Re: Communism

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. Yes, Sanders wants to use that expensive legal team to get a cut of those sweet sweet t-shirt hundreds. And that has what to do with communism? Which Sanders is not? Or even anything close to? God you Americans are so ignorant.

Re: Communism

[MachineShedFred]

And it's not ignorant at all to lump in 330 million other people with that guy you replied to.

What is it like to be an arrogant smug asshole?

Judge for yourself

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, apparently in the summary there is no link to the source. I thought our new Slashdot overlords were going to do that from now on? So I took it upon myself to do so, to let everyone judge for themselves. Don't want to see the original graphic that sparked this discussion? Why not? Afraid of the truth?

Here is Liberty Maniacs main page at libertymaniacs.com. The link to the shirt that Bernie's Brownshirts are trying to shut down is here. The other shirts on the site are mocking Donald Trump "We Shall Overcomb", the NSA "the only part of the government that listens", a T-shirt depicting police officers beating the shit out of a citizen, another Trump "Idiocracy", Trump again mocking his hair, "Carlin was Right", "I'm Ready for Oligarchy", a stormtrooper with the words "Support the Troops", a picture of that one guy in the crowd with his arms crossed refusing to Heil Hitler, and Hillary for Prison. Oh, and the Sanders "Bernie is my Comrade" parody.

Seriously, if anyone has a problem with this site, I really don't see it. Most of the merchandise is clearly mocking the Right, with only two there that the Left could possibly be offended about. And honestly those are probably just there to cover their bases and not lose any sales. The Sanders one is pretty uncreative, I mean it's an obvious joke to add his face to the famous "parade of Marxists" seeing as Bernie's own views are quite close to theirs. Don't believe me, ask real-live Marxists what they think about him. Spoiler alert: he's not far enough left for their taste. Anyone who wants to suppress T-shirt is just a thin-skinned asshole who can dish out the mockery but not take it. Guess what: that sort of thing cuts both ways. Feel the Bern!

Re:Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

> two there that the Left could possibly be offended about.

See, that's the problem. It's perfectly fine to mock the right but the left is sacred and humor is verboten.

It's kind of funny in itself that the left rivals all those people they complain about when it comes to hypocrisy.

Re:Judge for yourself

[jmac_the_man]

I think you missed that the "I'm Ready for Oligarcy" logo is a parody of the "Ready for Hillary" logo that Hillary Clinton was using before she officially announced her campaign. Also, "Free Shit 2016" in the same font and with the same graphics as the Sanders logo. (Also, these guys have Trump lumped in as a liberal, so the anti-Trump stuff is anti-liberal too.)

The American Indian stuff depicts people who got screwed by both parties. So does the cop beating on people one. So does the NSA one.

These guys are libertarians.They're to the right of the Republican party. They criticize the right for being too authoritarian, and the left for being WAY TOO authoritarian. It's kind of weird that you think that their criticism is coming from the left.

Re:Judge for yourself

[Entrope]

There's not a single "left-right" dimension to politics. Libertarianism is pro-liberty, both "individual" liberties (abortion, legalized drug use, gun rights, free speech) and "business" liberties. (Hard-core libertarians often act as if those two dimensions are enough to categorize or decide practically all politics; I disagree.) If libertarianism is stringently opposed to any -ism, that thing is totalitarianism, not progressivism or conservatism as practiced in the US today.

Re:Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

you really don't see the use of the trademarked logo in that image?
remember, this is trademark law, not copyright law.

oh, and again with the stupidity that he's a "Marxist", proving once again, you still don't know words.

Re:Judge for yourself

[dywolf]

the correct name for the side of the spectrum libertarianism is on is "anarchy", not "liberty", as the axis being referred to is more properly seen as the spectrum from anarchism to authoritarianism.

true liberty as a concept is only secured in the middle between the two.
anarchy is a false liberty, where only some actually have it, and everyone else is SOL.
hence the role of government in securing liberty for all through laws, norms, etc.

Re: Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, and modern-day Progressives are really totalitarians.

If you think that's wrong, maybe you shouldn't lump libertarians (who think government should exist, but with carefully limited scope) in with anarchists.

Re: Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The left is offended at the uncreativeness of the right wing ignoramouses who usually just repeat the insults of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill OReilly. To a right winger, calling a progressive a 'libtard' is the gleeful pinnacle of wit. And if you can throwin a 'lamestream media', well then, you might just take that show on the road! Pure wit and hilarity! Don't forget to say the 'kool aid'!! Zing!

Re:Judge for yourself

[Xyrus]

You are completely missing the point. This isn't about left or right. It's about trademark.

For example, you can't just take some trademarked item, make some merchandise, and sell it. It doesn't matter if it's Mickey Mouse, Coca-Cola, or Bernie Sanders. If there is an established trademark, you need to get permission first.

This isn't even a story. It'd be like some random schmuck making and selling Star Wars related merchandise without getting permission.

Re:Judge for yourself

[redmid17]

Let me put it this way, we don't have a problem with the site.

We do have a problem of unlicensed trademark use and/or use of someone's likeness without their permission or a payout schedule. Of course anyone with a brain could have grasped that, so let's just look past that and say "YEAH FUCK THE RIGHT, MAN!"

Re:Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess when you support gigantic government, libertarianism would seem like anarchy to your narrow world view.

Re:Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is using somebody else's trademark for profit. It's not a free speech issue as merchandising product for profit is not speech. If the guy were giving these shirts away then there would be no case. Since when is protecting a trademark about being offended?

Re:Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see if I read this right, you're saying libertarianism, which is typically considered a right wing view, is actually anarchy, something that's considered an extremist leftist ideology?

Man, what are you smoking?

Re:Judge for yourself

[jmac_the_man]

There's not a single "left-right" dimension to politics. Libertarianism is pro-liberty, both "individual" liberties (abortion, legalized drug use, gun rights, free speech) and "business" liberties. (Hard-core libertarians often act as if those two dimensions are enough to categorize or decide practically all politics; I disagree.) If libertarianism is stringently opposed to any -ism, that thing is totalitarianism, not progressivism or conservatism as practiced in the US today.

I'm not sure what part of this comment applies to what I wrote. The GP claimed that the NSA shirts and the cops beating on people shirt were "clearly mocking the right." They're not. They're criticism of BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans, which, combined with the context of criticism of specific left wing politicians (Trump, Sanders, and Clinton) and none of right wing politicians, makes it obvious who these guys are.

It's true that left-vs-right is a simplification of the views of whoever you're describing, but usually business liberties and individual liberties are put on the same left-to-right axis. However, the two main parties aren't the extreme side of either spectrum. Republicans are to the right of center, but they mostly don't take the libertarian view on drug legalization or certain business practices. (There are no angels in terms of cronyism.) Democrats are to the left of center, but there's plenty of them arguing to close Guantanamo Bay or that that drug penalties are too harsh.

An example of a different axis that really doesn't work in terms of left-to-right is isolationism vs. interventionalism. For example, Rand Paul is pretty libertarian for a member of the Republican party. He's pretty close to an isolationist. John McCain is pretty liberal for a Republican, but he's an interventionist. Plenty of the "Blue Dog" (conservative by Democrat standards) opposed the Iraq War. President Obama, who is pretty far to their left, ordered interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as drone strikes throughout the Middle East. You can pretty clearly make a spectrum there, but you can't draw the straight line that Republican == Conservative == Interventionist or Democrat == Liberal == Isolationist.

Re:Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy is leftist? So the Bernie's an anarchist who wants to only increase the strain on civil liberties and increase taxes (more or less) across the board? That's an interesting outlook on things.

I have to agree with the poster(s) above, the question of anarchist/libertarian moves beyond the knee-jerk left/right wing monikers.

Re:Judge for yourself

[butzwonker]

That's a rather uneducated opinion. Libertarianism can be divided into two major traditions, right-wing and left-wing libertarianism. Right-wing libertarianism has been worked out theoretically relatively recently and in response to classical liberalism. Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia has been very influential in this tradition as a response to Rawls. It has been taken up by politicians and policy-makers. Left-wing libertarianism is way older, similar ideas have already been defended during the French Revolution, and it is generally considered an offspring (or even used as a synonym) of Anarchism, Social Anarchism in particular. Right-wing libertarians do not consider themselves anarchists, even though they share most of their views.

Re:Judge for yourself

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

The link is actually right after the title, in a light-green link with a dark green background. It's really hard to see, and many have complained...

Re: Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment said that libertarians are "to the right of" Republicans. That's the part I was taking issue with.

Re: Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely, modern Progressives do not consider themselves totalitarian communists, even though they share most of the same views. And Democrats aren't democratic (witness the huge number of superdelegates), liberals aren't classically liberal, etc. Your one to complain about uneducated viewpoints!

Re: Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely, modern Progressives do not consider themselves totalitarian communists, even though they share most of the same views.

No, they don't share their views, and the rest of your post is also garbage. By trying to make fun of your own history you just come across as even more of an ignorant, and the weird thing is that there is no reason or excuse for it. It doesn't hurt to know a tiny little bit about what the words you use actually mean, and there are hundreds of excellent books about political traditions that you could read to get the basic facts and terminology right. They come in all varieties, from free and cheap to expensive, from extremely brief and concise to multiple volumes, and from leaning towards the left to leaning towards the right. And if you are too lazy for that, you could also just consult a few websites or even Wikipedia.

Re:Judge for yourself

[NoImNotNineVolt]

The Sanders one is pretty uncreative, I mean it's an obvious joke to add his face to the famous "parade of Marxists" seeing as Bernie's own views are quite close to theirs. Don't believe me, ask real-live Marxists what they think about him. Spoiler alert: he's not far enough left for their taste.

So, if we don't believe you, you've conveniently offered us a link that also contradicts your claim?

Re: Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern progressives have more political opinions in common with totalitarian communists than libertarians do with anarchists, you moron. If you think my comment above was wrong, you should criticize the nameless person above even more.

Re:Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a pretty mixed article, but sufficient to tell that Sanders is not a Marxist. It's a fucking retarded claim. Is he advocating a worker's revolution and nationalization of industry? No? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you...

Re: Judge for yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you're talking about. Kind of sad, but I guess that's how things go in the Internet. Anyway, I've achieved my goal already, which was to hammer into your tiny little brain that libertarianism does not mean what you thought it meant, by making you look up the definition. I couldn't ask for more.

Re:Judge for yourself

[dywolf]

too many people around here with mod points have skipped basic political theory.

the spectrum is anarchy-authority.
ie 0%-100% government control.

liberty as a function on such a spectrum resembles a bell curve.
even libertarians understand how the 100% side represents very little liberty.
but what many of them have trouble understanding is how 0% government has little to no liberty.

in a world with 0% government, you have anarchy.
in anarchy, you don't end up with a libertarian's ideal world.

rather you end up with a few powerful people, able to enforce their will through whatever means (economic, military, whatever), who enjoy nearly total personal liberty. everyone else enjoys rather less than that. it's a world of might makes right, where you only enjoy whatever liberty you can create for yourself. the more powerful you are, the more liberty you can create for yourself.

in such a world, there are no societal norms beyond what the HMFIC wants.
there no concept of "your liberty to punch me in the nose ends where my nose begins".

the very idea that you don't get to punch me in the nose is a restriction of your liberty. in a society where rules, norms, or laws exist to protect personal freedom, you don't have total liberty, because you're forced to recognize the rights of others.

you're forced to acknowledge this because we create rules or laws against things like assault, or murder, or theft. these rules may come from village elders, the king, or an council of elected representatives some distance away. Either way, its still represents some form of governance of society, ie, a government.

the only way an individual can enjoy total liberty is to a) live outside of society, or b) everyone else enjoys less liberty than that individual.
no society made up of 2 or more people can achieve total liberty for every person. there necessarily will be restrictions on behavior, which typically manifest as recognition of personal freedoms, and a stricture against imposing on other individuals freedoms (ie, you lose your right to punch them in the nose).

this isn't difficult stuff.
its first year political theory.

Re: Judge for yourself

[dywolf]

as to the first, ask yourself, which side is trying to get more people to vote, and which is trying to reduce it.

as to teh second, I didn't say libertarians are anarchists (though if you pay attention, a good want no government, which means many are).
I said the spectrum was being mislabeled, and gave its correct name.

Re:Judge for yourself

[dywolf]

a) I don't support gigantic government.
b) if authoritarianism/totalitarianism, ie 100% governmental control, is one end of the spectrum, you'd have to be really dumb to not be able to label the other end of the spectrum accordingly.

Re:Judge for yourself

[dywolf]

a) anarchy isn't leftist
b) see above post concerning basic political theory.

the anarchy/authority axis is not the same as the left-right axis.
realistically, even a 2-axis representation isn't enough, as there are other spectrums that can pop it out into 3 and 4 dimensions (though the dimensions you add, the more noisy it gets, and the harder it is to see a pattern among groups.

Re: Judge for yourself

[dywolf]

(need an edit button)

as to the first, ask yourself, which side is trying to get more people to vote, and which is trying to reduce it.

as to teh second:
-I didn't say libertarians are anarchists (though if you pay attention, a good want no government, which means many are).
-a spectrum isn't a binary choice, where you're either an anarchist or authoritarian
-I said libertarians generally exist on the anarchy side of the spectrum, showing that I apparently have a better grasp of libertarians than you.
-I said the spectrum was being mislabeled, and gave its correct name.

and I have since also expounded on how while its true that at 100% control (totalitarian) there is no liberty, te same is also true of 0% government (anarchy), and that 0% governmental control is not the same as 100% liberty.

ie, liberty on such a spectrum is a bell curve, not a linear gradient.

Re:Judge for yourself

[Entrope]

Saying the only (or even most) relevant axis is anarchy-authority is even more retarded than saying the only relevant axis is conservative policy-progressive policy. At least the latter can be defended by pointing to real-life examples across that spectrum, whereas there's no country that chose to trim government down to a level that either anarchists or libertarians would be remotely happy with. You like to cite basic political theory, but you fail to address basic political fact.

title

[Anonymous Coward]

this comments is just test for moderation, no need to be posted.

Re:title

[Anonymous Coward]

This is fucking bullshit and asshole

What a douchebag

[Afty0r]

This guy is making a profit, by using someone elses' likeness without their permission, making false political statements about them, and could actually be harming Sanders' campaign... and he doesn't seem to understand that he's being wrong at all. The guy making the T-shirts is a douchebag - he is exactly the reason why the law exists, and he should be shut down. Asshat

Re:What a douchebag

[Afty0r]

Wow how wrong could I be? On a second look, it appears that his entire range is pretty good satire/parody across the range of the political spectrum. This will teach me not to look at one page and post just after waking up ill and grumpy!

Re:What a douchebag

[Anonymous Coward]

This. If the McCain campaign had the foresight to sue Tina Fey and SNL over her use of Sarah Palin's likeness, without her permission, the '08 election could have turned out very different!

Re:What a douchebag

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't the likeness, its that he is using the (trademarked) Bernie logo.

Re:What a douchebag

[fnj]

making false political statements about them

There can be no "true" or "false" political statements, else there can be no meaningful political debate - just as there can be no "correct" or "incorrect" in politics.

There can only be true or false statement of FACTS, not opinions.

He incorporated his campaign?

[sabbede]

And it has a logo? Seems rather un-Bernie. As does the suit. It's also unsustainable, parodying the likeness of a Presidential candidate is protected speech.

Re:He incorporated his campaign?

[oh_my_080980980]

Hardly. This is not political satire. He is clearly profiting off of his likeness. Any individual or corporation would bring action. You just can't sell a t-shirt with someone's likeness for profit without permission. Period.

Re:He incorporated his campaign?

[sabbede]

Sure you can. https://apps.americanbar.org/l...

If it was just his picture or logo on a t-shirt, you'd be right. But as he's adding elements for the purpose of parody/satire, the plaintiff is a prominent public and political figure, and there is no "likelihood of confusion" whatsoever; it's very unlikely the suit will be successful.

Trademark MUST be defended

[houghi]

Trademarks MUST be enforced. You snooze, you loose. This is standard. This is the law. If they do not react, they loose their trademark. e.g. Walkman used to be a trademark, but they did not react, so now it isn't anymore.

This is a bout trademark and that I can get behind. If it were copyright, that would be completely different.

Re:Trademark MUST be defended

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to do this to you, but it's lose! Snoozing loose is something entirely different.

Re:Trademark MUST be defended

[houghi]

Blame the education system in my country where they taught it to me as a third language. Stoopid system!

Re:Trademark MUST be defended

[Anonymous Coward]

In this context, loose would also be acceptable. "loose their trademark" as in "set their trademark loose" as in "their trademark is released to the public" as in "lose their trademark".

Re:Trademark MUST be defended

[jittles]

Blame the education system in my country where they taught it to me as a third language. Stoopid system!

Don't worry, we all have ADHD around here. We'll make fun of your English as a third language skills for a day or two and then move on to something else.

Re:Trademark MUST be defended

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

It's called "genericide", and other such products like aspirin, hoover, escalator, frisbee and others have lost full trademark status. Even "heroin" was once a trademarked name owned by Bayer lol. Companies like Google and Twitter are currently fighting a war of genericide haha.

The true moral of this story is "hate the game, not the player" haha

Re:Trademark MUST be defended

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

well, at least you have a 5-digit UID...and to quote Jayne "And that's - Well, I guess that's somethin'. "

Re:Trademark MUST be defended

[Anonymous Coward]

A) Lies. But don't take my word for it: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet
B) There's a fair use for trademarks that covers satire. He's a public figure. I wonder how many other politicians are trying to censor their critics with IP law?

Re:Trademark MUST be defended

[Anonymous Coward]

also, how many rounds are in this trademark bout?

It's one happy collective

[Lucas123]

Until you step on someone's lawn.

One word...

[The-Forge]

Satire.

Dude can sell these t-shirts all he wants because they are satire and that's a protected form of speech. If it wasn't, Weird Al, MAD Magazine, etc would have been out of business a long time ago.

Re:One word...

[oh_my_080980980]

Umm no. If he was a journalist perhaps. But selling goods based on his likeness, no.

"It must be remembered that the line between trademark bullying and rightful enforcement practices is not always black and white. In light of the fact that mark owners are shouldered with the affirmative obligation to personally police violations of their intellectual property rights; aggressive enforcement campaigns do not necessarily rise to the level of abusive bullying tactics as previously described by the USPTO. By failing to control third party use, a mark owner’s rights may be substantially restricted."

"Thus, when encountering a questionable letter regarding the violation of another’s rights in a mark, the recipient must discern the following: 1) whether the enforcer’s mark is actually being used in commerce; 2) the similarities of the marks at issue; 3) the specifically delineated goods and services used in connection with the alleged senior user’s mark; and 4) the trade channels and consumers that encounter the mark alleging superior rights."

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015...

Put it to you this way, the NFL would have something to say if they guy did the something with the NFL.

Re:One word...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the fact Weird Al has gotten permission for all his Satirical songs, In fact some of the original artists are the ones who approached him about creating a Satire of their own songs

Re:One word...

[budgenator]

Whoa dude full stop,
1. the Sander's campaign is a corporation, not a governmental entity, it has no obligation to observe the 1st amendment.
2. there is no parody or satire exception under trademark law.

Re:One word...

[rahvin112]

Public person's are fair game, particularly politicians. You can do whatever you want with their likeness. It's the trade off for being a politician. The standard the court uses in such situations is malicious speech. It has to be untrue and be deliberately malicious. Such a standard is damn near impossible to prove because it requires the state of mind of the person that did it and unless you can get them to admit it you will lose.

There is a small exception to this and that is trademark. If they are using anything other than just a picture of the person, say the official campaign trademark I'm not sure where that will fall. But even a slight alteration for parody is going to be strictly legal. They probably have rights to protect the exact campaign trademark as long as it's very strictly used and is unique. A photo of the person isn't unique.

Though I do find the people claiming Trump didn't do something similar to be excessively funny. Hell Trump is on record saying he wants to alter the First Amendment so he can sue more people who say mean things about him. But then neither the left or the right really value the first amendment speech protections anymore. Both sides would happily add speech restrictions as long as it was restrictions on the "right speech". Fortunately they disagree about the speech to ban so the public has been relatively protected from their stupidity.

WTFITAWIIH

[transami]

What the fuck is this? And why is it here?

Bernie is strong

[Anonymous Coward]

The asshole works for a Hillary PAC.

Her supporters seem to be desperate.

gnaa

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor priorities, hear you. Also, if [idge.net] mechanics. So I'm a full-time GNAA for the record, I irc.easynews.com

Bernie Sanders IS a Communist

[mi]

Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing)

Whatever the fook "democratic socialist" means, Bernie Sanders is not that. He is a "Democratic Socialist" — an important distinction not easily obvious in verbal communications — a member of an American party, which adores Karl Marx and other Communists of the past and is arguing in support of collective ownership of the means of production. Page 10 from Exhibit A:

Our goal as socialists is to abolish private ownership of the means of production. Our immediate task is to limit the capitalist class’s prerogatives in the workplace

That is Communism by definition. And the guy, who wrote the above is David Green — a member of DSA National Committee — is standing right next to Senator Sanders during his speech at a DSA convention...

If you choose to engage in a dialogue, be sure to state unambiguously upfront, whether:

1. You agree, that DSA are Communists (wholly or in a substantial part).
2. You accept, that Bernie Sanders is a member of that party.
3. Communism is the most murderous school of thought known to humanity so far.

Responses without clear answers to the above three questions will be returned unopened.

Re:Bernie Sanders IS a Communist

[KGIII]

At this point, I should mention that I have a photograph of myself standing next to the first President Bush. I am not a Republican.

I also have a picture of myself, in my Dress Blues, standing right next to President Carter. I am not a Democrat.

There are pictures of me with drug dealers, artists, common criminals, and even a few other famous people.

There's even a picture of me with a cousin of a man named Aidid. I can assure you, I am not a war lord. I was, on the other hand, in Somalia at the time - purely tourism and educational. I'd sent a bit of money and then was curious about it as I'd not known much more than Black Hawk Down and the news around that from back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. So, I went and it was rather eye opening but that's a story for another day.

Then, I'll go so far as to say that Sanders is nominally a member of the Democrats. You can look that up. However, he's quite squarely (politically) in the camp that would be known as the SP-USA/SPA, or whatever they're calling themselves this week - the Socialist Party of America/United States of America. I seem to recall there being a blurb about an American Socialist Party - which is another animal entirely, or so I understand. I am only passingly familiar with the first and not the latter and have no idea if they ever got off the ground but I had a "friend" who was ranting about them for quite a number of years.

At any rate, you can't just assign things to Sanders that aren't true and then try to insist that others be honest. Well, you can, but that's not actually very intellectually honest - now is it? No, Sanders is a member of the Democratic Party. That's the facts and that is only the facts. However, if he were in a more representative party then he'd almost certainly be in the Socialist Party of America though, it'd be in ill-fit with the latest changes within the party, he'd actually fit into the Libertarian Party as a Socialist Libertarian.

You can't just say that he's a member of a party and leave it at that - and expect to have an honest conversation or debate. That's not a valid debate tactic - though it's likely to win against those who aren't actually able to think logically and reason themselves to a good rebuttal. So, I'll give you that - credit where credit is due. However, you're not debating idiots. Well, okay... I'm unfamiliar with the parent poster so it's possible that you are. It's not likely, however.

That said, I shan't spam but I'm in the process of working on a site that encourages and tries to facilitate intelligent discourse *and* civil discussion. It's still very much in the beta stage but if you're interested then let me know by email or whatnot. I do not necessarily agree with your political views but it'd be a pretty boring site if we all agreed, now wouldn't it?

However, I'd agree that Communism is the most murderous of political ideologies in modern times. It might even be the most murderous ever - though I'm not sure if that holds true if we go by percentages. There were some REALLY aggressive tyrants in ye olden days who did some serious damage to population numbers in their respective regions. They may have Communism beaten in a per capita sense but surely not in totality.

I'd agree that Sanders is Socialist but not Communist. He even does us the favor of identifying as a Socialist - and I'm disheartened that he sticks with the Democrats as opposed to being more honest. I'd actually respect him a bit more if he were to represent the Socialist Party of America instead of riding the coattails of the Democrats.

So, I agree that that group might be Communists and such is immaterial.
I do not agree that he is a member of that group, currently or in the past. (So far as I know, he's never been a member. Association with is not membership or even implied acceptance or agreement.)
Communism is very murderous and an absolutely horrific idea in groups larger than, maybe, 150 to 200 people.

Oh sure, Communism sounds good on paper but it's bullshit in reality. It would only work if everyone agreed and that's not going to happen so it has to rely on force. Any governance by means of force is generally going to allow fewer liberties than are just. Fortunately, Sanders is not a Communist.

Re:Bernie Sanders IS a Communist

[mi]

I have a photograph of myself standing next to the first President Bush. I am not a Republican

Is there a picture of yourself giving a speech at a podium, while President Bush looks at you (admiringly)? Probably, not...

Ok, to rehash. You agree that Communism is evil, that's a relief. You seem to agree, that DSA are Communist enough to taint any member — if he is a member.

But you insist that:

• Sanders is a Democrat.
• Sanders is not a member of Democratic Socialists of America

The first point is not entirely relevant, so I'll just point out, that Sanders is constantly identified as "an Independent" — he is caucusing with Democrats in Senate, but he is not one of them. The usual state/party designation next to his name is (VT, I.).

He is running for a Democratic Party nomination this year, but that's neither here nor there. Ron Paul ran for Republican nomination several times, but he is a Libertarian...

Now, is he a member of DSA? Here is my evidence:

• He gave speeches at their events — more than once. (1991, 1994, 2006.)
• He is referred to as a member by the party's own materials: Bernie Sanders — the independent Maine [sic] Senator and DSA member.
• He thanked them for their helping him in his 2006 Senate race.
• The party's current strategy lists "grassroots work for Bernie Sanders" as its number one priority. And it is not mere words.
• He refers to himself in conversations as a "democratic socialist" (carefully leaving ambiguous, whether that means a political philosophy or a particular party).
• His own site promotes "talks" about both DSA and "democratic socialism".
• He is viewed rather admiringly by the DSA.

With so much evidence, it is way past time he repudiated their support, don't you think? Unless he welcomes it, of course. Far less evidence was ever presented, that Donald Trump was a KKK-member, for example, before angry voices and sneaky interviewers demanded, he "repudiates" that organization. Talk about "intellectual honesty"...

Even if a stubborn juror may insist, the above evidence does not convict Bernie Sanders of being a Communist beyond reasonable doubt, there is certainly enough to rule against him on the slightly lower preponderance of evidence standard. He is a Communist alright...

Lastly, about your (and others') attempts to distinguish between Communism and Socialism... The distinction is without difference — Socialism is merely Communism-lite.

But even if you disagree, who would want a Hugo Chavez — another "Socialist not a Communist" — to become President of their country? Because, other than the late Presidente's anti-Semitism, the Senator's ideas are indistinguishable from his...

Re:Bernie Sanders IS a Communist

[KGIII]

Hmm... Where to begin? I have checked your citation and, using the preponderance of evidence - that akin to a civil trial, I'd still not say that he is "more likely than not" to be a member of the DSA. Not even remotely. He's much more akin to the Socialist Party of America in stance, in case you're curious.

Now, to address the real concern. Socialism is not necessarily Communism-lite. It certainly can be, it can be full fledged Communism or whatever you'd like to call that practiced by Stalin. (I prefer "Stalinism" if you're curious.)

See, not everyone is a crazy zealot with binary thinking. Some people actually are able to realize that any one political ideology will not work in its "pure" form. Simply put, you can not have (realistically, and all evidence demonstrates this to be true) a pure democracy. You can not have a pure communist, socialist, or any-ist government.

Thus, it's very legitimate to say that some are more socialist than others. It's fair and legitimate to say that some are more democratic than others. It's fair to say that some are more capitalist than others - seeing as we're going to need to realize that economic models also come into play.

There are those who are so zealous that they think pure communism is a good idea. They're retarded. There are others who think that pure socialism is a good idea. They are also retarded. In fact, there are varied degrees of socialism - just like there are varied degrees of democracy, capitalism, etc.... For example, the United States is less socialist than France by a wide margin. India, in practice - if not nominally, is much more capitalist than America.

This is the part you're missing and that's because you're a crazy zealot. Just because you see things in black and white, in binary, does not mean that everyone does. It's odd that you see things that way because you're otherwise intelligent. No... There are very few, comparatively, zealots and even fewer are actually in positions where they've been elected. They've been making compromises for years, for example.

Which leads me to this...

Not only is Sanders distinctly NOT a communist but he's really not nearly as socialist as you seem to think. He's not advocating things like government control of the means of production at a greater level than it already is. (By extension, by taxation and regulation, you could already say that the government *is* in control of the means of production, but it's a matter of degree.) It is fair, honest, and accurate to say that Sanders is a socialist. It is not fair, accurate, or honest to say that he's a hard-line, zealous, tyrannical, socialist. It's actually okay to say that he's "a bit" or "a little" or "quite a bit compared to me" socialist or whatever.

Dude, no... Not everyone is some sort of binary zealot who is hell bent on only one thing. It's communist to have things like communally shared property or communally paid services. It's democratic when they let them vote for one of several approved candidates. It's socialist to have a fire department or a hospital that is partially funded by taxes. It's capitalist when they used physical currency and paid different jobs different salaries.

The world is not a binary place. The world is not black and white - it's full of not just grays but multiple colors. Is Sanders a socialist? Sure. He's also a capitalist. He's also a believer in democracy. He's also got some communist traits. Most everyone on the planet does because they've realized that no one pure political or economic ideology is going to work. It never has, it never will, and there's no reason to even try it because it always ends very poorly when you have zealots, of any kind, in power. From Chavez to Idi Amin. From Stalin to Hitler. From Pol Pot to Khadaffi. Zealots in power, of any stripe, don't mix. We know this.

Sanders is not a zealot.

I know you're too smart to believe that he's a zealot. I am pretty sure you don't really believe that he's a communist in any meaningful fashion. I coul

Re:Bernie Sanders IS a Communist

[mi]

I'd still not say that he is "more likely than not" to be a member of the DSA.

What, I wonder, does "being a party member" mean, in your opinion? If decades-long cooperation with the party and the party itself calling one "a member" is not enough, what will? Do you need him to also openly announce membership — and will remain unconvinced until then?

Socialism is not necessarily Communism-lite. It certainly can be, it can be full fledged Communism or whatever you'd like to call that practiced by Stalin.

Yeah? So, if Trotsky prevailed back then, you think, it would've all been somehow different? Maybe in some details, but it still would've been both evil and destructive.

What do you call Venezuela? "Chavizm" replaced by "Madurism"? You've not read Marx enough I see — the man made it abundantly clear, how unimportant an actual single person is, compared to the "historical process". The weak Socialism is followed by hard Communism — it is happening in Venezuela right now. Once you allow the glorious Collective to overrule the silly and cantankerous Individual, it is all downhill and no amount of "Democratic" qualifiers will help.

Sanders is not a zealot.

I don't care, if he is or not — what you are saying is that he'll likely fail to bring about, what he promises. But that's irrelevant: a sympathizer of a patently evil ideology can neither be mentioned in a polite company other than with disdain, nor voted other than against — regardless of whether he is personally deemed to have a sufficient zeal to repeat the gruesome acts of the earlier followers of the same evil.

Whether Bernie Sanders deliberately wishes for America to suffer the destruction already exemplified by Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, or is too stupid to realize, that's what his ideas will lead to, it is his Communist sympathies that make him a Communist (as exemplified by his decades-long association with DSA — whether you call it "membership" or not). There is no upside in supporting him — at best he will fail to accomplish what he promises. The downside, however, is an abyss.

Ya gotta have a bit of each to have a healthy diet

No, you don't need to eat poison to have "a healthy diet". I ate enough of the Socialist arsenic growing up in the USSR to build up tolerance, but I'd rather my children didn't have to suffer through it at all. A wise man can learn from other people's mistakes without repeating them himself. Wise up.

Re:Bernie Sanders IS a Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

words have meanings.
the word I'm thinking of now is "illiterate idiot".
as in, you, because of your continued inability to learn actual definitions to the concepts you deride. it is not communism-lite.
communism is a form of socialism, not the other way around.
hierarchy in classification and definitions matters.

Re:Bernie Sanders IS a Communist

[dywolf]

continued reading of Mi's posts will show you that he isn't interested in facts.

Because, idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Trump and the Trump campaign "loves the poorly educated" (his words not mine) - the Trump campaign TARGETS these persons seeking to recruit. Most of these folks are unable to distinguish between communism and socialism if in fact they even know these are two very different things.

Re:Because, idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most of these folks are unable to distinguish between communism and socialism ... these are two very different things."

Yes. The latter is the precursor to the former. Very different.

My mistake.

[will_die]

Major mistake on my part!!!
I thought they were looking for examples of Hillary
. For trump....
Referring to illegal immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America he said lot of them were criminals, drug users or rapists before they came to the USA.
Wanted to build a wall, fence would be the term Democrats prefer, to ensure the border of the USA.
After one of the terrorist attacks from a muslim immigrant he said the USA should not allow any muslim immigrants in until Congress had figured what was going on and what happened.

Yawn, because actually reading the article is hard

[Anonymous Coward]

It's important that stories like this are widely publicized so that the public can see the true face of Sanders before it's too late.

Yes, the "true face" of Sanders is what you are fiercely concerned with. In fact, it's evident that anything which might reinforce your preconceived notions is more important for you to regurgitate on your own jumbo screen - even if it handily shows you are completely misinformed.

Senator Sanders had nothing to do with this incident other than having the competence to hire a law firm which is diligent in doing their job.

The fact is - the only thing the law firm is defending is the Sander's campaign's logo and if you had even a passing understanding of copyright law, you would understand that this is something they have to do.

But keep screwing that chicken in the hopes that maybe someday you'll get eggs.

I second

[Anonymous Coward]

The flamebait. What a f***ing buffoon. Poor baby.

Bernie's problem

[tom229]

Bernie's problem is that he's gone on camera so many times saying he's a democratic socialist, that he has to keep running with it. I'm sure he would prefer to drop the whole idea, especially considering (this article is case and point) that the general public really is confused about what all these terms mean. So what he's doing here is trying to scare someone that, presumably, is having some success selling these tshirts that intentionally misrepresent his position. Is this smart? Without knowing the exact situation all can say is probably not. Best case scenario, the guy backs down and closes the doors - most likely he just removes the logo and uses the cease and desist for marketing to sell more shirts - and worst case they are forced to take this to court during an election. I would make some changes in my campaign staff over this one.

Re:Bernie's problem

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

well, looking at their site Liberty Maniacs sure isn't going to just back down...people have been tweeting about this for days now. IMHO, the "best case scenario" is that the Sanders campaign itself puts the attack-dog lawyers back into their cages and Sanders himself just laughs it off. In a way, this reminds me of when Trump sued Bill Mayer over saying he was an orangutan.

Islam isn't a race, illegal immgration isnt a race

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam isn't a race, illegal immigration isn't a race.

We can't criticize or mock politicians any more?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is surprising that you were modded up.

Political Speech

[mdsolar]

https://twitter.com/ChrisDudle...

He doesn't want to be associated with Stalin!?

[bigsexyjoe]

So let me get this straight. Someone makes a shirt that associates Sanders with Stalin. Sanders, who is trying to win a presidential campaign, uses the same trademark laws that everyone else uses to make him stop doing it. Think of the children!!

Whats the next story?

[bigsexyjoe]

Sanders campaign isn't completely carbon neutral? Sanders campaign used closed source software?

Fighting back against bullying is "bulllying" now?

[T.E.D.]

I may not be a huge Sanders fan, but Sanders frankly is comedy gold. So if you are going for funny, it ain't that hard. But placing pictures of him next to Stalin like they were buddies isn't even the slightest bit funny. Even if you're trying to poke fun at your own ignorance for not being able to tell the difference between anybody to the left of you and a Communist, that's just sad, not funny. So clearly, humor was not the goal here.

This isn't comedy; its straight up character assassination. If his lawyers don't try to go after it while he's running for high office, they aren't doing their jobs.

Yes, It is a Law

[mx b]

There is absolutely no law banning communism, just like there is no law saying you can't put a white sheet over your head and march down the street with the KKK.

How in the fuck is this scored Insightful?

It's Insightful because it's unfortunately true. Check out this gem of American history: the Communist Control Act of 1954. You can also download the text from the Government Publishing Office. It very explicitly states that, according to law, anyone in the Communist Party is considered to be attempting to overthrow the government, and shall be punished according to the law of Internal Security Act of 1950.

Now you might be able to make the claim that if you generally believe communist principles but aren't part of the established Party, this won't apply to you. But I think that effectively takes away your rights to organize, does it not? Still effectively a ban on the idea, if nothing else.

Re:Yes, It is a Law

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, uh, there is the inconvenient truth that at the time the act was passed, Communists really were attempting to overthrow the US government. It wasn't some crazy paranoia. Paranoia is an irrational fear. And why couldn't it have happened? Communists in China undermined the government from within for decades and it all culminated in a fantastic victory for the international Left. This happened a mere five years before 1954. By contrast, consider that the Syrian Civil War started five years ago and think about laws we might pass in reaction to that.

Re: Yes, It is a Law

[Type44Q]

I totally dig your revisionist description of the Red Scare; very creative. ;)

Re:Yes, It is a Law

[ultranova]

Communists in China undermined the government from within for decades

By government I presume you mean the Japanese occupation forces?

By contrast, consider that the Syrian Civil War started five years ago and think about laws we might pass in reaction to that.

What laws do you think the United States of America should pass in reaction to Syrian Civil War, and why?

Re: Yes, It is a Law

[HornWumpus]

I really like your binary thinking.

It is possible that the red scare was an overreaction AND that the CPUSA was funded by a hostile power that had openly declared their intent.

There is no longer any doubt that CPUSA was getting funds from Stalin. Those records are all open today.

Which didn't make anybody in CPUSA a Rusky agent, but did make them a full idiot.

Re:Yes, It is a Law

[JohnFen]

It very explicitly states that, according to law, anyone in the Communist Party is considered to be attempting to overthrow the government

Being a communist != being a member of the Communist Party.

Also, Sanders is not a communist.

Re:Yes, It is a Law

[Agripa]

Overthrow with by electing candidates into office? Why do we even have elections if they allow that? Oh, they do not. We just have two faces of the same party.

Re:Yes, It is a Law

[dywolf]

No, it was not an victory for the international left.
You fail to remember what you consider liberalism was the majority view point of the western world, both in Europe and the US, and they almost unanimously opposed communism following the victory over the fascist threat. (ah, but that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?)

No, it wasn't just undermined from within in a handful of years, though you try to make it sound like it was an act of sabotage, or outside agitators (ah, but then we must remember your worldview is that only some political actors are legitimate).

But nice try rewriting Chinese history, and ignoring that the Chinese Civil war, the war between Nationalist Kuomintang party and the Communist Chinese Communist party, ran from 1927 to 1950, and was a fight between the countries two main controlling parties.

It wasn't sabotaged, and it wasn't undermined.
There's a lot of stuff in this dig into in correcting your ignorance (yet again), but a short version is:

-There was a rebellion against the last dynasty, led by Sun Yat-Sen. It succeeded. Chaos ensued.
-Following the fall of the dynasty, warlords popped up, seeking control of their own little fiefdoms (it's a big place).
-Sun Yat-Sen tried to get help from the western democracies to gain control over the warlords (though he effectively was one himself) and stabilize the country.
-No help came, so he turned to communist Russia. Chiang Kai-shek even went to Russia, where he was trained in military and political matters.
-They founded a school in China to share the knowledge they gained.
-but the agreement was contingent that Russia would only help the fledgling Kuomintang party (founded by Sun Yat-Sen) if the CCP, also recently founded, was also allowed to attend.
-For some time the two parties worked together, had common goals, and their people even comingled between the two.
-For some time, both divided the governing of China, in their separate sections, while presenting to the outside world as a single country
-Eventually they reached a point where they began squabbling, and questioning the legitimacy of each other's right to political power.
-They eventually began an on/off again war against each other (largely carried out farther away from the capital, where they still made nice to each other in public).
-eventually the Kuomintang fled to Taiwan, and rest is history

The Kuomintang finally lost due to several factors:
-the factious CCP came to be united under Mao
-the Russians gave captured Japanese hardware to the CCP
-the provinces controlled by the Kuomintang were the ones most affected by the Japanese occupation
-the Kuomintang came to be ruthless (even brutal) rulers unpopular with many of the China citizenry (the US organized a ceasefire in 1946 largely to stop the Kuomintang's violence), and its leaders antagonized many of the provincial leaders across China who otherwise might have aided them against the CCP
-the US supported the Kuomintang, mainly out of opposition to the CCP, but that support was hesitant and ineffective, largely because at this time we hadn't yet hardened ourselves to supporting bad actors in the name of opposing communism.
-and most importantly, the economy collapsed in the Kuomintang areas causing hyperinflation, and leading to loss of almost all remaining support they enjoyed from the populace

Re:Yes, It is a Law

[dywolf]

remember, to his world view, democratic elections are only valid if the right people get elected.

Re:Yes, It is a Law

[AK Marc]

Nope. They never were. That was all lies to cover for the fact that the US did invade Russia, with the White Army to overthrow the Reds. The US did the worst of what they accused the commies of, and that we'd do it is proof that they would, though they didn't. They were interested in the atomic bomb, and other things, but didn't ever try to overthrow the US government.

Voltaire

[cyberchondriac]

Or maybe it was Kevin A. Strom. Either way:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

A defense that the First Amendment requires

[tepples]

Parodies are protected speech

Not quite. Parodies are an affirmative defense.

An affirmative defense that the First Amendment requires courts to recognize. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a second successive extension of a subsisting copyright term in Eldred v. Ashcroft, it also held that fair use and the unprotectability of ideas constitute the implementation of the First Amendment in copyright law. So you're both right: free speech is protected, and an affirmative defense is how this protection is asserted.

On the books, not in force

[tepples]

Check out this gem of American history: the Communist Control Act of 1954

From the article: "In 1973 a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional".

Re:On the books, not in force

[KGIII]

Umm... What do you think Arizona's ruling has to do with anything? Arizona could rule that you still had the right to own slaves, it doesn't matter at all. It's a *Federal* statute that still exists - though it is not used. Arizona ruling on it has absolutely no bearing on it other than being a mild curiosity. Further up this sub-thread, I linked to a whole ton of material. It's one of my favorite stupid laws that remains on the books. Arizona can rule all they want, they can also try to catch a fart and paint it green. Their ruling on a Federal law means nothing - even within the State of Arizona. The courts are entirely separate critters and Arizona has no legal authority to overturn Federal legislation.

So, other than a mildly amusing factoid, it's meaningless. The reality is that it is a Federal offense. Of course, the reality is that the Feds don't give a shit but that doesn't make it any less a law. It was a stupid law then and it is a stupid law now but it's still on the books. I suspect that the SCOTUS would chuck it, if it went in front of them. At this point, that has not happened. So, it remains a law, regardless of Arizona's opinion on the subject.

Re:On the books, not in force

[tepples]

In 1973 a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional

What do you think Arizona's ruling has to do with anything? Arizona could rule that you still had the right to own slaves, it doesn't matter at all. It's a *Federal* statute that still exists [...] Arizona has no legal authority to overturn Federal legislation

The court located in Arizona that interpreted this federal statue was a federal district court.

Re:On the books, not in force

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, a federal district court deciding something means dick-all for whether a law is still in force.

Re:On the books, not in force

[tepples]

A ruling in one district is not binding on judges in other districts, but it gives them something to copy and paste when laughing a prosecutor out of court.

Re:On the books, not in force

[Agripa]

From the article: "In 1973 a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional".

Which only applies in that district. From the same article:

However, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality.

So it remains a law except in that district which the federal government can use at any time.

Re:On the books, not in force

[tepples]

Then why hasn't any administration since then attempted to enforce the CCA? Perhaps because the Attorney General knows full well that a judge is far more likely than not to throw it out under identical reasoning.

Re:On the books, not in force

[Agripa]

Because they can use it for intimidation until they really need it. Then they arrest troublemakers or otherwise tie them up in court, and drop it making the case moot before a review would create unfavorable precedence. It is just another law which can be selectively enforced.

Re:On the books, not in force

[AK Marc]

It is non-binding precedent, but is precedent none the less.

Re:On the books, not in force

[KGIII]

Yeah, I noticed that after. ;-) Good catch.

The government creates these laws

[tepples]

Freedom of speech only protects you from your government, not from a private person or corporation

Protecting a citizen from the government includes protecting a citizen from enforcement of copyright or trademark laws enacted by the government.

Re:The government creates these laws

[thegarbz]

You're stretching the constitution so thin I can see through it.

Don't forget, corporations are people too. What about the shareholders? Who'll think of them!

Re:The government creates these laws

[tepples]

I stretch the First Amendment no thinner than the the U.S. Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft stretched it. The Court held that fair use is the statutory implementation of a First Amendment limit on the scope of copyright.

Re:The government creates these laws

[thegarbz]

And what does limiting of scope of copyright have to do with your assertion that you're some how magically protected from government copyright laws? Sub question: when is the mouse going to be in public domain?

Re:The government creates these laws

[tepples]

And what does limiting of scope of copyright have to do with your assertion that you're some how magically protected from government copyright laws?

I never intended to assert "magic". It's just that courts recognize that "government copyright laws" are a limit on speech, and in order to temper that limit, they recognized fair use in case law. The doctrine was later codified in the Copyright Act of 1976.

Sub question: when is the mouse going to be in public domain?

Under current law, elements of Mickey Mouse that appeared in the original Mickey trilogy (Plane Crazy, The Gallopin' Gaucho, and Steamboat Willie) enter the public domain in the United States on January 1, 2024. Claims against third-party derivative works under U.S. trademark law would likely be precluded by the precedent set in Dastar v. Fox that a trademark cannot be used as an ersatz copyright.

If you're referring to "perpetual copyright on the installment plan", as some critics of copyright call it, the Supreme Court implied in its opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft that a third successive extension would likely constitute "legislative misbehavior". The 1976 extension was for harmonization to the life of grandchildren term recognized by parties to the Berne Convention, making up the majority of the developed world. The 1998 extension was for harmonization to Europe, which had updated this standard for longer life expectancies. To which major developed market would a third successive extension before 2024 harmonize?

How is Marxism a crime?

[tepples]

Calling Sanders a Marxist is a crime because you are accusing him falsely of engaging in criminal behaviour.

Which U.S. law considers Marxism to be "criminal behaviour" and hasn't been ruled unconstitutional?

Re:How is Marxism a crime?

[silentcoder]

It's still a federal crime to be a communist. The law isn't actively enforced these days - but Senator McCarthy's favorite law is still the law.

Re:How is Marxism a crime?

[silentcoder]

Specifically: the Communist Control Act of 1954 signed into law by Eisenhower.

You can argue whether it WOULD be ruled constitutional - but it's a purely academic argument because the supreme court has never ruled on it at all.

5 Ways Trump Mirrors Hitler's Rise to Power

[tepples]

Has anyone actually called Trump 'Hitler' ?

You mean other than Adam Tod Brown in his article "5 Ways Donald Trump Perfectly Mirrors Hitler's Rise To Power"?

Re:Yawn, because actually reading the article is h

[DNS-and-BIND]

The frightening part isn't Sanders himself. It's the people who surround him, the ones who will receive patronage positions if the worst happens and he is elected President. It's like a who's who of the hate-filled Left. A law firm is just the tip of the iceberg, there are some seriously scary people who are staunchly pro-Sanders and will be in the government if he wins. We're talking about people who consider Venezuela and Cuba success stories.

Apple introduces iRack

[tepples]

there is no parody exception to trademark law

Then how did Fox get away with MADtv's iRack sketch? Was it the addition of a stem to the logo?

Follow the DMCA/Cease and Decist Link

[BigU 03C0mpin]

The single person running the Liberty Maniacs website has an update on the DMCA linked/blog page (not the product page), not on the product page, detailing that this was sent by the Sanders Campaign lawyer without consulting the Sanders campaign. As is typical in this scenario, it's an overzealous lawyer and an overzealous "my free speech is being trampled on, authoritarians! Buy more to stick it to the man!" Never mind that he's obviously using the opportunity to generate eyeballs for his site and burying as far down(blog page, halfway down in the posting as an *update) as he can the fact that it isn't the campaign, but their lawyer doing this.

As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. My guess is that the campaign lawyer is just following the normal course of action as he sees to protect his client. I wouldn't be surprised to see this silently go away as a small misunderstanding since, if Bernie really understands the youth the way he claims, this wouldn't bother him.

In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia the Bern feels you.

Re:Yawn, because actually reading the article is h

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you care to name names?

Sanders doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, so I've lost most interest in the election at this point.

Just one simple question: donations to Sanders?

[whitroth]

Skimming the article, I don't see where he says he was donating *any* of the profits to the Sanders campaign. That sounds like a not-unreasonable reason for the lawyers.

                mark "can I sell Mickey Mouse t-shirts without cutting Disney in?"

CCA has been ruled unconstitutional

[tepples]

Which U.S. law considers Marxism to be "criminal behaviour" and hasn't been ruled unconstitutional?

the Communist Control Act of 1954 signed into law by Eisenhower.

You can argue whether it WOULD be ruled constitutional

A federal district court in Arizona has ruled the CCA unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has not yet overturned this district court's ruling.

Re:CCA has been ruled unconstitutional

[silentcoder]

My understanding was that this finding only applied to Arizona. The supreme court hasn't ruled on it because nobody appealed the finding - and it thus remains in place elsewhere.

If the law was actually ruled unconstitutional at a national level - how can it still be on the books ?

Re:CCA has been ruled unconstitutional

[tepples]

A law is on the books until it is repealed, but that doesn't make it enforceable. Even though the ruling of the federal district court in Arizona isn't binding outside that district, other federal courts are likely to reach the same conclusion for the same reasons. Has the Communist Party USA or any other peaceful Communist organization been prosecuted under this law outside Arizona in the four decades since the federal district court threw it out in Arizona?

Re:CCA has been ruled unconstitutional

[silentcoder]

No administration has ever tried to enforce that law, not even the one that passed it. The closest anybody came was to try and stop people running on the communist party ticket - which is where the court case comes from. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for being a communist.

Just because nobody has been prosecuted and the law would likely be overturned if they did - does not however change that in the meantime the law stands. So falsely accusing somebody of breaking it remains slander.

Re:CCA has been ruled unconstitutional

[tepples]

Then a defense to a charge of slander would be that the act of supporting communist causes is not a crime because Congress lacked Constitutional authority to make it a crime in the first place.

Re: CCA has been ruled unconstitutional

[silentcoder]

That defense may work. But first Sanders would have to actually charge you with slander. Which he has not done to anybody. What may be a defense in court is utterly irellevant if the matter does not come before court.
Even then I am by no means sure you are right. More likely the judge would rule he has to deal with the slander case based on the law as written and its legitimacy is not a factor and cannot become one as neither party would have standing to sue the government. Roberts has been notoriously finicky about standing.

Re:CCA has been ruled unconstitutional

[shutdown -p now]

Slander has actual measurable harm associated with the speech. Holding political opinions does not.

Re:CCA has been ruled unconstitutional

[shutdown -p now]

SCOTUS has also ruled in Yates v. US that political beliefs, even including belief in violent overthrow of existing government, are constitutionally protected free speech so long as they are "abstract doctrines". This applies to CCA in a very obvious and direct way, effectively rendering it unconstitutional outright, even if it wasn't the target of the case - just as Lawrence v. Texas applied to all sodomy laws everywhere in US, even though the case only involved one particular law.

Anyone else go over and buy it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought 2!

omg; bernie want's to make money

[wnfJv8eC]

off his image, first. Like this is a bad thing? You use my face, you ask me first. When you don't and I object, that is not bullying. So, to bad your ill gotten money stream is screwed.

Fair Use

[Xenographic]

See, this is why you read the *case law* and not just the statutes themselves. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that there's a fair use defense for trademarks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"A nonowner may also use a trademark nominativelyâ"to refer to the actual trademarked product or its source. In addition to protecting product criticism and analysis, United States law actually encourages nominative usage by competitors in the form of comparative advertising"

"The fair use defense in trademark law is not precluded by the possibility of confusion, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004."

Re:Fair Use

[Theaetetus]

See, this is why you read the *case law* and not just the statutes themselves. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that there's a fair use defense for trademarks:

See, this is why you read the *comment you're replying to* rather than just Wiki. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that we're talking about some alleged immunity for public figures that doesn't exist, even within the fair use doctrine. This is not comparative advertising, and assuming for the sake of argument that it is protected parody, it would be safe from liability because it is parody and not, as the grandparent claimed, because "as a public figure, Bernie's likeness is not [protectable by trademark]."

HTH. HAND.

Re:Fair Use

[shaitand]

"because it is parody and not, as the grandparent claimed, because "as a public figure"

And in either case, the aforementioned statute still requires an attempt to defend the trademark. In fact, choosing places that have fair use defenses is a way to do establish a record of doing so while doing no damage at all since they will simply respond pointing out fair use. Insert in file, congrats, you can establish you've defended your trademark.

Re:Fair Use

[Xenographic]

I don't think you fully appreciate how being a public, political figure weighs into the fair use factors. The courts would balance the public's right to engage in political speech (the most protected category) against Bernie's rights here.

And there's no way they're going to shut down all critical political discourse because of trademark rights, because let's be honest, every politician would use it to stop "unfair" criticism of themselves.

It may not be anything like immunity but let's be clear here, this is trademark abuse. I don't like that no matter who is abusing IP law, whether that's SCO, the RIAA, the RNC or Bernie.

Re:Fair Use

[Theaetetus]

I don't think you fully appreciate how being a public, political figure weighs into the fair use factors. The courts would balance the public's right to engage in political speech (the most protected category) against Bernie's rights here.

OTOH, section 43 of the Lanham Act was explicitly written to protect the publicity rights of celebrities and other public figures, because, let's be honest, no one's selling T-shirts with the likeness of Mildred Hoopenfart from West Nowhere, Idaho. Unless the subject is known to the public - i.e. a public figure - then there can be no likelihood that the public may falsely assume they're associated with or endorsing the product.

Additionally, this isn't solely political speech, it's commerce. The first amendment concerns are lessened when we're talking about commercial sales activity. Putting the same image on a protest sign or flyer would not implicate Lanham 43, for example, and Bernie would have no trademark rights whatsoever to assert in such a case.

OK soooo...

[XMadtowner]

I'm lookin' at the t-shirt pic right now and it is just an image of a generic old man wearing glasses next to the bust images of those of bad political ides past with the tagline " Bernie is my comrade" underneath. Implied to be that of Sanders, this is political parody at best. At most the shirt should be discounted for such poor likeness. Geez fella, put some effort into the artwork, someone is supposed to wear that.

Lawyers run amok

[Anonymous Coward]

As a whole, lawyers don't really have the grasp of politics they think they do, and are bound to fuck up royally if not given proper oversight. So yeah, the Sanders campaign has fucked up, but not in the manner it would seem on first glance.

Re:Fighting back against bullying is "bulllying" n

[Anonymous Coward]

He and his wife honeymooned in the USSR. He's a frequent visitor to Cuba. Makes one wonder if he would claim to be a Communist if that wasn't such a politically unpopular title in the U.S. I wouldn't consider a picture of Sanders next to Stalin to be funny at all. I'd consider worrisome.

Re:Yawn, because actually reading the article is h

[amicusNYCL]

I like how that comment doesn't name anyone, or even provide any source of who is going to be appointed. I don't think such a source exists, because I don't think Bernie has filled his cabinet at this point, but still I like the complete lack of substance to go along with the fear you're spreading. Well done, that's exactly how political trolling should work. Bonus points for terms like "if the worst happens" and "hate-filled Left" (including the capitalization of "Left").

There internet disagrees

[SuperKendall]

Perhaps you should avoid saying things like 'Nobody has called Trump "literally Hitler"' until you actually Google it

Campaign Logo Use in a Product For Sale == Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Use of a public figure's picture in a satirical fashion is OK. Satirical use of a campaign logo is OK. However if the logo is used in a satirical way in a product being sold...that's not OK.

So all the guys need to do is change the "Bernie" logo to just text or something that doesn't look as much like the official campaign logo, then all will be fine.

Re:Yawn, because actually reading the article is h

[KGIII]

As someone who will likely be *very* financially impacted by a Sanders' win for presidency, I have to tell you, he's the best chance you have. Your country is crumbling around you, you appear to not notice, and needs repairs. This is going to take additional funds. This is going to take allocating funds wisely. This is going to take someone other than the other candidates that you're being offered.

It's my country too but, should I need to, I've the means to leave or even not be impacted much - regardless. Tax avoidance is both legal and remarkably simple. I don't generally avoid my taxes because that would be a shitty thing to do. I do avoid some of them, the ones I don't personally prefer to pay, but I most generally pay them all. I typically reduce my tax burden to the maximum allowed by donating to charitable causes, in case you're curious. I also don't actually have to spend much money on myself and have learned the power of incorporation, accountants, and a business-oriented lawyer. If you're really curious, I don't mind the taxes so much as I mind how they spend them.

At any rate, you really are *likely* to be better of with Sanders than you are with any other candidate that's actually in the running at this time. You may not like his politics but, really, congress isn't going to let him get away with much. You'd also be hard pressed to find anything that you can feel comfortable saying about his politics on that Jumbotron that you mentioned, unless you're rather inhumane. What, are you going to stand up there and say, "Yes, I want poor people to suffer because I won't contribute an extra $5.00 total, per year, in taxes to help send them to school so that they can better themselves!" You're gonna feel proud to stand up and say that? Really?

Hell, chances are good that you don't even pay much in taxes. Some near 50% of you pay nothing in Federal taxes and very little in State taxes. (Everybody pays some taxes. Of course, the percentage paid is actually worse for the poor people.)

Seriously, I'll get taxed a few more percentage points. That actually adds up to a bit of money. I'm okay with that so long as they spend it wisely. Improving things and making things better in the long-run are what I'd call "wisely." I don't know about you but I kind of prefer the idea of a better future for more than just myself. Me? I'll be all set, thanks. I'll be likely to vote for Sanders because I want *your* kids to have a greater chance at fiscal improvements and because, truth be told, it takes a bit of capital for you to make the most of your freedoms and to appreciate your liberties. Poor people might be free but there's fuck all they can do to enjoy it.

What's that saying? The one about how the law, in its magnanimity, makes illegal for both poor and rich alike to sleep under the bridge?

Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Are pussies.

Re:Fighting back against bullying is "bulllying" n

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, I think the Sanders campaign (and nearly every campaign I can think of, back into the mists of history) want to control their message. If this t-shirt dude is off message, or distracting, or even a supporter but with flawed PR instincts, they have both a right and an obligation to shut him down.

Being called a Communist is, in the US context, like being called a murderer. It's repellant and political kryptonite. Even if done in fun, or satire, or whatever, it can only damage an active campaign. It makes no difference if the t-shirt dude thinks "it's obviously a joke" or if they feel they are being discriminated against in some obscure manner.

The right thing for t-shirt dude to have done was to ask permission first. I'll bet a day's pay that didn't happen. Because the answer would have been No and either t-shirt dude takes the hint, or decides to defy the Sanders campaign anyway.

Socialism != Communism

[Dagmar d'Surreal]

...you *dense* motherfuckers. It's rather likely this wasn't C&D over trademark as much as it was a crappy smear campaign they wanted to put a stop to. "Parody protection" isn't something you can invoke willy-nilly because you think it might be funny.

Re:Islam isn't a race, illegal immgration isnt a r

[silentcoder]

Hating on many races is MORE racist than hating on just one.

Re:Yawn, because actually reading the article is h

[dywolf]

the ignorance and fear is strong with this one

Re:Yawn, because actually reading the article is h

[dywolf]

btw, no, we don't consider Venezuela or Cuba success stories, but thanks for putting words in ours mouths.

im sure you don't mind if I return the favor and state that you consider the imploding economies of Kansas or Oklahoma success stories too?

Freedom of Speech ?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me there is a pattern amongst the Sanders campaign to try to stifle freedom of speech from anyone who would criticize them. This is just yet another fine example of that. If the T-shirt maker was making t-shirts that were complimentary to the Sanders campaign you better believe they wouldn't say a word.

Ironic

[djcopi]

Ironically, this is exactly what a communist/socialist dictator would do: squash any criticism as forcefully as possible. At least Bernie only has lawyers rather than an army of secret police -- for now.

Ex parte Young would allow CPUSA v. Lynch

[tepples]

Say a statute S enacted by a legislature L, be it Congress or the legislature of any of the several states, makes an act A into a crime, but a higher law such as the Constitution denies L power to enact S. Then anyone who intends to perform A has standing to sue the Attorney General of the same jurisdiction for an injunction against enforcement of S. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123. For example, a Communist party would have standing to sue AG Loretta Lynch for an injunction against the CCA.

The following may be a bit of a stretch, but a defense to defamation could include assisting such a suit and getting the defamation case put on hold until the statute's constitutionality can be decided.

Re:Ex parte Young would allow CPUSA v. Lynch

[silentcoder]

Well, you would then need to convince the communist party to bring that suit at this time, when it would harm a candidate they likely support. They certainly don't believe he is one of them, but they also certainly consider him a better ally than any other candidate. I don't see it likely they'll choose your side.