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.
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.
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!
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.
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."
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/
Is that fair? Of course not. It should have been Lu-Desi, or "ludes" for short. Everyone knows she was a much better actor than he was, and that's even if you remember that she was an actress and not an actor. She was still a better actor.
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
And yell bloody murder when somebody says something that hurts their feelings...
How's that War on Christmas going?