Slashdot Mirror
Offensive Trademarks Must Be Allowed, Rules Supreme Court (arstechnica.com)
In a ruling that could have broad impact on how the First Amendment is applied in other trademark cases in future, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a federal prohibition on disparaging trademarks as a constitutional violation in a ruling involving a band called The Slants. From a report: The opinion in Matal v. Tam means that Simon Tam, lead singer of an Asian-American rock band called "The Slants," will be able to trademark the name of his band. It's also relevant for a high-profile case involving the Washington Redskins, who were involved in litigation and at risk of being stripped of their trademark. The court unanimously held that a law on the books holding that a trademark can't "disparage... or bring... into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead," violates the First Amendment. Tam headed to federal court years ago after he was unable to obtain a trademark. In 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Tam's favor, finding that the so-called "disparagement clause" of trademark law was unconstitutional.
One of the few times the constitution still matters in the free speech arena these days
I've wanted I(heart)269 on my car since California added their little set of additional characters
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
One man's hate speech is another man's free speech. Waste of the court's time.
Don't know if The Slants meant their name as disparaging or not, but I'm glad that the Supreme Court actually took a unanimous stance in favor of free speech. In these days of extreme political correctness/social justice warrior activism, I am surprised it wasn't a 5/4 or 6/3 split. If you think I'm being dramatic, you can look to our English speaking neighbors to the north & east to see how bad it's getting.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Can't stop the signal.
Realistically, the anti-disparagement law only lasted this long because Obama's administration wanted it to so they could use it against the Redskins. I don't think there are too many people who care about an Asian-American rock group naming themselves "The Slants" - after all, there's really nothing inherently disparaging about the word "slant" unless you're using it as part of a slur ("slant-eyed").
This is really a case of the government trying to screw over the little guy because of a broader policy agenda (namely forcing the Redskins to change their name).
NPR had a episode on their Planet Money podcast about this very case.
You can only take it.
If enough people are outraged by the Redskins or the Slants, their respective businesses will suffer and they will make a financially informed decision to make a change. If -- as we all know in our hearts -- only a very few loud, whiny SJWs even gave these names a second thought, their respective businesses will continue as normal. Good Job, SCOTUS.
As soon as you do ban them, I'm going to protest that the supreme court has an offensive name (ok, not a trademark but still a name) because their assumption that they are supreme is very offensive to me.
I hope so.
Nah, these days, it's the left that'll bitch, calling it 'hate speech' or 'racism' or somesuch.
Seems like a good interpretation of the constitution. That really is outside the range of what trademark law is about.
The obvious sequel to this is for people who find these terms offensive to trademark them preemptively.
What you have to keep in mind is that a trademark is not a legal right to use a term-- it is a legal right to sue others to prevent them from using it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Holy shit seek help there might be one under your bed!
unless the 'potentially offensive' trademark is anything even remotely liberal-leaning. Then the alt-right will scream bloody murder and lawsuits will ensue.
We're use to it bro; been catching your hate all our lives. Right now there is a twitter tag: #HuntRepublicans, created by a (D) operative named James Divine. Nothing new; been going on forever. Hate filled liberals say whatever they want without consequence.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
...the Indian head will be replaced by a profile picture of Yasser Arafat.
I'm filled with envy of everyday americans who can live in a country where the government can't do everything.
So...will a rapper try to trademark the word n-igg-er
Not exactly a rapper, but when Flex started singing, his stage name was derived from the N word. Damon Wayans attempted to start a clothing line named after the N word.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
See http://jalopnik.com/5911415/th...
There is ONLY speech....how you perceive it is completely your opinion.
This. And I've spent countless hours trying to bang it into peoples' heads.
We seem to be saying different things. Nothing you posted supports the assertion "hate speech does not exist." What you wrote supports a position "hate speech, like any other kind of speech, is protected by the first amendment."
Fine.
Just don't phrase that using the statement "does not exist."
Trademark something offensive like "Impeach Trump", then send lawyers after anyone who uses it on Twitter. You don't even have to win any cases, you just have to scare enough people into silent.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
unless the 'potentially offensive' trademark is anything even remotely liberal-leaning. Then the alt-right will scream bloody murder and lawsuits will ensue.
We're use to it bro; been catching your hate all our lives. Right now there is a twitter tag: #HuntRepublicans, created by a (D) operative named James Divine. Nothing new; been going on forever. Hate filled liberals say whatever they want without consequence.
And yell bloody murder when somebody says something that hurts their feelings...
The right understands Tolerance is about my putting up with your wrong ideas regardless of how angry it makes me. The left thinks that tolerance is about me not saying anything that hurts their feelings... So who's going to sue? The left, of course.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There's a legal fiction that SJW types and their fellow-travelers like to promulgate that the First Amendment doesn't cover "hate speech." This decision says that argument is false:
The justices further noted that "speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions."
Free speech cannot be prohibited, or even restricted, just because SJW types find it "offensive."
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Hitler Did Nothing Wrong (tm)
Fuck You(®)
About time!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The Krauts.
I wonder if that would've also been blocked by the USPTO and had to go to litigation to resolve.
some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
(Well, at least so far desi does not have any pejorative connotations, lets see how long it remains so...)
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Exactly the kind of comment I was combing these comments to find after reading that name!
Well, the good news is that people have been trying to fix that flaw for decades. I get the distinct impression the average American voter has no idea how this country is supposed to work.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Now I can name my band "N*****s With Attitude" and still get a trademark! Oh wait... it's been done, hasn't it?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If the government is going to issue trademarks, they have to issue them in a content-neutral way. Otherwise, the government is placed in the position of judging content, and the cases in which they can do that without conflicting with the 1st amendment are rather narrow, such as obscenity, child porn, and community standards for the FCC. Note that "community standard" has never actually put the government in the position of defining offense. I've actually heard "fuck" on my local community radio station because it was in a work deemed to have artistic merit, and broadcast at night. I know this would not fly in every part of the country.
1A cases can involve more judgement than we'd like to admit. It's always uncomfortable for one party or another. I think the court made the right call here. Since trademarks go everywhere, there's no local community standard. You can only reject or accept them for the entire country, and if you rejected on the basis of "offense" you'd have protest groups dictating national policy, potentially shutting it all down. Those groups are still free to act at the local level--e.g., protesting outside a club where The Slants is on the marquee, and then the owner of the club can decide whether or not they want to deal with it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Nice to see US constitution once again trumping SJW's desire to impose their fascist antics on society. There can be no freedom without tolerance so suck it up my fellow bitches.
Acknowledge that all trademarks infringe on the first amendment right to free speech.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
And yell bloody murder when somebody says something that hurts their feelings...
How's that War on Christmas going?
And yell bloody murder when somebody says something that hurts their feelings...
How's that War on Christmas going?
Don't know, haven't shopped at Target for years.... "Happy Holidays" to you!
Does it ever get cramped in the little box you've put yourself in?
Fuck Trump (C) (TM)
Everyone has my permission to use it as I am placing it in the public domain :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If you register a trademark, you have to use and defend it against infringement, otherwise it can become genericized and lose its protected status. Example: Kleenex. A vast number of people used the trademarked name to refer to the generic product, the common use of the name caused "Kleenex" to become a generic term. So if you want to register some sort of offensive word to deny others the ability to use it, you have to find a way to use it and take action against infringement.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The correct ethnic-speak 140-char spelling these days is "niga".
Optionally with 2 n's, being "nigga", but even that's becoming dated.
Perfectly sensible censorship policies at slashdot. :D
They're just trying to help you fukked up honkees get with the times, not look so outdated to your precious kids.
And you know, the majority market audience for black gangsta rap is predominently white cracker flavored.
Makes my bigga nigga brain hurt just a little, but that's the price one pays for being a literate darkie in our modern times ...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What climate? Ignoring a couple of celebrities you're still far more likely to have your life ruined for a public far right statement than a far left one.
Christians forgive, commies do not.
No, of course they don't, nor do separate countries, that's 'racist', don't you know...
All pushing towards one world government - how democratic that will be...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There's a big difference between saying something offensive, and preventing others from enjoying themselves. Now, as someone who's not religious (I personally treat it as a holiday to enjoy family and friends, not a religious event), I'll tell you that I'm fine with the idea that our tax dollars shouldn't be spent on those items supporting it. But, we shouldn't be wasting our time trying to keep groups who do from gathering and celebrating publicly. If a govt. employee wants to put up a Merry Christmas sign at their desk, nobody should be able to stop them. When the Fortune 500 company I work at no longer allows employees to have any Christmas decorations at their desks, I'd argue that that's a War on Christmas, and it's simply spiteful.
Just another day in Paradise
Looks to me like they got this one right.
..., all had slaves.
Now to undo prior bad rulings, like the Redskins logo ban, and the removal of Confederate monuments.
I don't condone racism/slavery, yet it seems to me that all those targeted-for-removal Confederate monuments need to remain.
They are not monuments to slavery per se, rather monuments to the people that fought for their country.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al
I don't see any effort to censor monuments for these peoples, nor would I want to see that.
We ALL need to recognize and remember these folks, and their TRUE character; no matter the degree of their character.
And, we all need to recognize logos as NOT being statements in disrespectful disregard.
It is arrogant and offensive - and unconstitutional - to go about arbitrarily choosing something to ban.
GROW UP! Get a real education!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No. Scientific evidence that incidence of mental health issues is higher in that community does not mean they "have a higher tendency" at all.
That would actually support a nature (not nurture) viewpoint but fails to take into account environmental factors including the bullying explicitly mentioned in the study you referenced.
As for prevalence of some sex attraction in a population, yes, there has been sufficient time since ancient Greek civilisation for that to have shifted.
Of course you d need to demonstrate that it has in fact shifted. Let's just say that young boys in Afghanistan are still getting raped on a systemic basis.
Meatloaf is awesome too and a good meatloaf shares much in texture and taste with a proper faggot. There's a lot more variation though so I'd recommend getting your laughing gear firmly wrapped around those gorgeous faggoty balls.