| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66912
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/19/17 2:17 pm ::: Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: |
Reply  |
|
There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
| Quote: |
| the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 2:24 pm ::: Re: Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: |
Reply |
|
| I am far from a lawyer, but this sure seems to have face validity. The idea that these trademarks would be withheld never made sense to me.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 3:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
The more appropriate headline for this forum was the earlier one from Volokh because the Redskins name has been discussed numerous time here:
The Slants (and the Redskins) win: The government can’t deny full trademark protection to allegedly racially offensive marks
The Supreme Court held the disparagement exception to the federal trademark law to be an unconstitutional governmental infringement of free speech. That provision the prohibited the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring. . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead." It was the provision that the Patent & Tradmark Office and lower federal courts had used to cancel the "Redskins" trademark. Those decisions will now be reversed in favor of the Redskins. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 3:55 pm ::: Re: Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| I am far from a lawyer, but this sure seems to have face validity. The idea that these trademarks would be withheld never made sense to me. |
Well, you always had a right to speak disparaging terms, but it was much more dubious whether you were entitled to government protection of your exclusive use of an offensive term. I think that's far more questionable.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 4:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| So, lawyer type people. How does this ruling impact prohibitions states have put on things like vanity license plates? Is there soon to be a rush on alt-right plates?
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 5:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| So, lawyer type people. How does this ruling impact prohibitions states have put on things like vanity license plates? Is there soon to be a rush on alt-right plates? |
Alt-right speech is courteous and respectful. You probably mean alt-left speech, whereby everyone who disagrees with any neo-liberal worldview is called racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, fascist, Hitlererian, and every vulgar obscenity known.
In any event, the answer to your question is no. There's a concept called "government speech" under the first amendment, which can be regulated or censored. Government speech is something the government says, approves, authorizes or sanctions, at least partly, on behalf of the government itself.
Since vanity license plates are issued by the government, the words on them are a form of government speech, which the government can regulate or censor because otherwise it might appear that the government is approving the messages on the vanity plates.
The argument was made that trademarks are government speech because they are in a sense issued by the government, but the Supreme Court disagreed. I haven't read the decision closely enough to figure out how they distinguished the license plate case. |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 6:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Yes, neo-nazi speech is so respectful (alt-right is just another name for white nationalism).
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 8:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
(My) confusion reigns:
If I/you/we want to....
....name our club "Niqqers Only"....
....name our team "The Child Molesters"....
....name our town paper "The Hitler Herald"....
....name our choir "No Jewz Aloud"....
....I/you/we MAY do that, with no concern for legal repercussion?
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66912
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 8:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
(My) confusion reigns:
If I/you/we want to....
....name our club "Niqqers Only"....
....name our team "The Child Molesters"....
....name our town paper "The Hitler Herald"....
....name our choir "No Jewz Aloud"....
....I/you/we MAY do that, with no concern for legal repercussion? |
I would hope so. What else could free speech mean?
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/19/17 8:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
(My) confusion reigns:
If I/you/we want to....
....name our club "Niqqers Only"....
....name our team "The Child Molesters"....
....name our town paper "The Hitler Herald"....
....name our choir "No Jewz Aloud"....
....I/you/we MAY do that, with no concern for legal repercussion? |
I don't know why there would ever have been "legal repercussions." You've always been free to use those terms. The only issue was whether the govt had to grant you a trademark for the offensive name, not whether you were free to use the name.
|
|
|
|
