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.
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.
NPR had a episode on their Planet Money podcast about this very case.
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 think you are correct. If there is a political agenda, the judges normally vote along party line. If there are no politics involved, the courts will default towards the letter of the law.
People have been redefining acceptable free speech for so many political views, they don't think about the legal impacts. As if only politically correct acceptable speech should be allowed, that's not how free speech works.
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.........
Realistically, the anti-disparagement law only lasted this long because Obama's administration wanted it to so they could use it against the Redskins.
The anti-disparagement clause is part of 15 USC 1052(a), and was in the first version of the Lanham Act, passed in 1946, and signed by Truman. It has remained the same over the past 71 years, and Congress, not the President, has the power to change it or keep it.
Trying to make this about Obama is just stupid, particularly when the first case about this - Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo - was decided in 2005 during Bush Jr.'s presidency. And it's even stupider, because that case stemmed from a petition to cancel the Redskins' trademark in 1992, during Clinton's first term. This has been an active dispute for 25 years.
"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.
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."
Actually...while what you said is accurate, you left out a really important and pertinent point. The executive can direct the federal agencies how to enforce the various laws which are used as the basis for administrative rules that dictate how those agencies function. While the case was about The Slants, the more publicized issue was with the Redskins. For that, the last sentence of the AP article on this ruling is insightful:
"The trademark office for years had raised no concerns about the Redskins, agreeing to register the name in 1967, 1974, 1978 and 1990. But the office canceled the registrations in 2014 after finding the name disparaged Native Americans."
That sudden reversal was all about a directive coming from the White House. No new law or rule...just the president telling a federal agency how to enforce the rules via laws. Same thing happened in the opposite direction with DOMA. So, yes, this was entirely about Obama and his directives.
The obvious sequel to this is for people who find these terms offensive to trademark them preemptively.
This has already been done with domain names for years. NAACP owns all the obvious racist domain names, and so on. Trademark law, like all traditional legal norms, is still catching up with the Internet.
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.........
There was a group of astronaut enthusiasts that probably caused that one.
If enough people are outraged by the Redskins...
In a conversation that included an actual Native American, she asserted that only "Professional Indians" (her term, spoken with rolling of the eyes) cared. At all.
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.........
There's a legal fiction that SJW types and their fellow-travelers like to promulgate that the First Amendment doesn't cover "hate speech."
Generic catch-all for people I hate do something I don't like even if most of them actually don't.
Yay death to the strawman!
Free speech cannot be prohibited, or even restricted
ITYM "should not". Clearly free speech can be prohibited as many people have done so in the past.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And yell bloody murder when somebody says something that hurts their feelings...
How's that War on Christmas going?
Only one of them was actually enslaved in our country.
I don't care what country you are referring to, no one race has been the only one enslaved. The word "slave" is derived from "slav" as in the peoples that live in the Caucasus region. "Caucasus" is where "Caucasian" came from, as in white people. Lots of Irish slaves were in America but in time the economics of enslaving them reduced their numbers. Buying slaves from African tribes just became cheaper is all.
Did one race predominate in slavery? Sure. That does not mean other races did not exist in slavery.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.