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.'"
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.
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.
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.
Free speech isn't to say that flowers are pretty, it is to make claims people in power of any sort have dispute with.
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.........
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
Of course hate speech exists. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
"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!
Except that there are other limits to speech outside of hate speech.
You cannot threaten public officials and expect to use the First Amendment as a dodge for criminal charges. You cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and expect to use the First Amendment as a dodge for criminal charges.
Then there's inciting to riot, "fighting words"....
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I'm filled with envy of everyday americans who can live in a country where the government can't do everything.
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.
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.
Actually, you can. It's a common fallacious argument made by people who admit there should be restrictions on speech.
If you look under indictments for people who have said these things, there's no charge against "saying the wrong thing". But you'll find plenty about assault, threats to national security, or inciting public turmoil.
There aren't restrictions on the speech itself. You're also allowed to own a weapon, it doesn't mean you can legally walk around pointing it at random people.
In summary, there shouldn't ever be any restrictions on speech and there is no reason to.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Completely wrong on both
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."
Indeed. People need outlets for their stress and anger, lest they snap and do something truly harmful. I may not want to hear someone spewing their hateful ideas, but I'd much rather they speak those ideas than act upon them.
Repression does not work and only leads to much more grandiose acts when the repressed party finally reaches their breaking point. For example, a racist who can't speak out about his irrational hated of Black people for fear of being charged with a hate crime; having no outlet for his hate and anger, he will eventually act upon those pent up emotions and violently assault or murder one or more members of the group he so despises.
Better to just let them blow off steam IMO.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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
It does not matter if you truncate it not, it is equally wrong in both cases.
There is a difference between your speech and the consequences of your speech. There are no laws against yelling fire in a theater, whether or not there is a fire. But there ARE laws against things like reckless endangerment. If you yell fire and cause a stampede and people are injured, then you are likely to be charged with reckless endangerment, not because you said some prohibited word but because you actually endangered people.
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/
I hate all nerds with a 7 digit UID.
Go ahead and classify that shit, you weak-minded weak-willed bitch.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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
Actually I'd say THE "important subset" of free speech is political speech. It's perhaps taken for granted today, but the right to speak your mind and disagree politically is paramount. Don't get me wrong: I'm NOT arguing for censoring offensive speech. But mostly I support protecting it because there is sometimes an intersection between offensive speech and political speech. The freedom is about expressing opinions without the government locking you in jail, not just about the right to insult people in the most heinous way imaginable.
Free speech does not extend the the encouragement, endorsement, or threat of acts of violence.
Sure it does. Certainly any degree of "encouragement" or "endorsement" in the form of speech would not justify a violent response. Threats likewise, though there is a caveat: if your speech gives someone the impression that they are facing an imminent threat of irreversible harm, it would not be unreasonable for them to respond preemptively to counter that threat. That would simply be self-defense; the response is justified by the anticipated act of violence, not by the act of speech.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
But you'll find plenty about assault, threats to national security, or inciting public turmoil. ... There aren't restrictions on the speech itself.
"Assault" can be nothing more than speech. Classification as a "threat to national security" may be based on nothing more substantial than something you said. "Inciting public turmoil" usually amounts to making a speech the authorities don't care for. All of these "crimes" are restrictions on the speech itself and a violation of the 1st Amendment.
There shouldn't be any restrictions on speech... but in practice, as the law is currently written and interpreted, there are.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Nobody said that there aren't any consequences. The question is whether or not it is ILLEGAL to say or write those words. And it is not. Sure, you may get a visit from some not too friendly Secret Service types. You may be put on a watch list. You may be surveilled day and night for indications that you are putting your threat into action (which is of course illegal). Won't you WON'T be is arrested, tried, and convicted of merely saying or writing some words.
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.
All controversial speech is political, because of human nature: we try to suppress what annoys, disgusts, or offends us.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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"?
All controversial speech is political, because of human nature: we try to suppress what annoys, disgusts, or offends us.
Okay, but that requires a definition of "political" that's likely a lot more broad than most people think of. All controversial speech is SOCIAL -- I'll grant you that. But yelling an insult at your neighbor is not (by most people's definitions) a "political" act. It may be offensive to your neighbor and to other people who hear it, but that doesn't automatically make it "political."
Political, according to standard dictionary definitions has something to do with government. Insulting your neighbor (even in a rather offensive way) because you don't like the color of his shirt has nothing to do with the government.
If it exists, then clearly define it.
If your definition is so broad that it encompasses a large portion of speech already, then perhaps some existing definitions are better suited and the term is useless. Kind of like 'assault weapon'
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Well when people are trying to criminalize 'hate speech' then yes, you do need to refer back to the constitution.
There's no hate speech. There's just stuff some people don't want to hear so they've tried to force their views onto others and restrict speech illegally.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
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?
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.
Um, actually, you might be. There are people in prison for speech that was ruled as intended to precipitate illegal acts. Often without the illegal acts ever occurring.
If you make a speech saying "Someone ought to shoot that stupid SOB!" and then someone DOES actually shoot him, you are at the mercy of the prosecutor, especially in the Feds. Especially if the 'victim' is a member of a protected class.
I remember a guy who was convicted for preaching on some private church Facebook page that someone should kill his ex-wife. One of the appeals courts overturned the conviction because he had previously unfriended everyone on the page in question - he thought nobody was reading it. He still spent a couple of years in jail/prison, though.
In the Feds you can be convicted even if there is no 'actual' harm. If the victim of your hate-speech 'reasonably' felt threatened, you are at risk of conviction. Note that this depends on a state existing in the head of someone who heard your speech.
Being threatened IS 'actual' harm, legally speaking. And once again, you are not being punished for your speech, you are being punished for the consequences of your speech.
And your last sentence is just silly. ALL threats, including pointing a gun at someone, are dependant 'on a state existing in the head...'. The question becomes 'what did YOU do to cause that state?'
olitical, according to standard dictionary definitions has something to do with government.
So nice to know the workplace is entirely politics free, then. That's a relief. But maybe you meant to say "power". And mobs also have power.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Free speech does not extend the the encouragement, endorsement, or threat of acts of violence.
Sure it does. For example, if someone were giving a speech to a political rally and said "I think that all of the #minority# should be rounded up and shot." that would be protected free speech.
If the same person at the same rally were to say "Hey, see that guy over there! He's a #minority# go grab him and shoot him in the head!", that would not be protected free speech. That would be an act of criminal solicitation or perhaps even inducement.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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
If all speech is the same, interpreted by the perceiver, then why do we have book reviews? Those exist to tell us what forms of printed speech we are likely to want to read. The only reasonable conclusion is that words have meanings.
In the real world, people use speech to proclaim hatred for others and encourage such hatred in their listeners. Fortunately, that's a fairly minor use, but it exists. That's hate speech.
It's legal of course, and I wouldn't want it to be illegal, but there are different kinds of speech.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There are things that exist and can't be clearly defined. Try clearly defining "game" in a way that excludes most things we would not think of as games and includes things we do call games. Make sure it includes baseball, World of Warcraft, Dungeons & Dragons, chess, and the "Great Game" power struggle between Britain and Russia over Afghanistan and neighboring areas, to start with, and is compatible with "gaming the system".
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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
I'm going to argue that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was more of an expert on the law than you,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just another day in Paradise
At least look up what you're talking about if you're going to argue against it.
The actual quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, was "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". Which blows away the rest of your drivel.
Just another day in Paradise
The boundary of free speech is wherever SCOTUS defines it, and since the quote was attributed to a Justice, I'd suggest you reevaluate your position.
Just another day in Paradise
SCOTUS says they don't need to define it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just another day in Paradise
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.