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.
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).
Seems like a good interpretation of the constitution. That really is outside the range of what trademark law is about.
"Hate Speech" doesn't exist.
It's all Free Speech.
Hate speech most certainly does exist. Just because it's protected by the first amendment doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There is ONLY speech....how you perceive it is completely your opinion.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"Hate Speech" doesn't exist.
It's all Free Speech.
Wrong way of looking at it.
"Hate speech" is the important subset of free speech. You don't need a constitution to protect inoffensive speech.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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!
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.
You can disagree or dislike what someone says, but they can say the same about you. One can (easily IMHO) argue that all the 'if you support trump you're an idiot/bigot/rapist/etc.' is hate speech. It's directly targeting and disparaging a group of people who share a different personal view of something. No one gets to decide what kind of speech is good vs. bad and still have freedom of speech. It can't exist that way.
Yes, there are some obvious call-outs to like that such as screaming 'fire' when there isn't one...but frankly you could still consider that free speech then charge the person with reckless endangerment or something.
I hate black people and think they should all be euthanized. Hate speech? Substitute 'black people' for cattle ranchers and now you're PETA promoting animal welfare. Substitute for pit bulls and you're politicians promoting safety for children. The examples are endless. I might think you're scum for some of your opinions but I'll still support your right to share them. Oh, and no, I don't support the 'righteous' morons who think violence is an acceptable response to speech they disagree with.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
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
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day... NPR happens to get a worm now and then...
Actually, they do quite well with their "facts" the problem they have is their obviously liberal bias in their editorial decisions like "what stories we cover" "what facts they choose to use" "what conclusions are we drawing". However, they are worlds better than MSNBC and usually CNN so I do actually listen to them fairly regularly to see what the other side is actually thinking.... (This coming from what most would call a ultra right winger...)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yep.
I can say "cracker"...
I can say "honkey"...
I can say "spic"...
I can say "wop"....
I can say "chink"...
I can say "gook"...
And none of these seem to get censored by slashdot.
Why the special treatment of ni--gger?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This is also the effective way to "take a word back". You not only take it back, you have to wear it proudly and eliminate the negative connotations. It's like when people started being proud about the geek/nerd label.
"Hey nerd, what's up!" "Happily being a nerd! You?"
You can't do that if you still police it as offensive though. "Hey Nerd!" "How dare you call me that! Only nerds can call other nerds a nerd!" That isn't taking it back, that's reinforcing the negative power of the word.
Obviously I prefer news organizations that attempt to be careful with the facts, which is why I don't watch MSMBC except their comedy shows hosted by Maddow.... All of them have their issues, so if you take what they say with the necessary amounts of salt and throw out all the editorial bias shows the news they report is generally all about the same. Consumer be wary, they are in business to sell advertising and don't make a penny reporting the news...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Reason #1: Squeaky wheel problem
Reason #2: Threat of violence from offense takers
I actually understand that quite well.
But unless there is an implicit thought to protect all speech in society to go along with the govt restraints against it....you end up losing the battle.
Places that are actually discussion groups should strive to embrace the "First Amendment " philosophy too, especially when they are American owned and centric groups.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........