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.

Comments

Re:Can we stop caring about this?

[cayenne8]

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.

Re:The next step

[cayenne8]

So you pretty much do not understand the First Amendment at all. Here's a simple summary: private individuals, corporations, groups, etc., can engage in all the censorship they want. It's the government that (in general) is not allowed to censor.

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.