Miami night club news from the source

SCOTUS Smokes Ban on ‘Racially Disparaging’ Trademarks

Your source for autistic screeching.

Moderator: TechJunkie

Postby Wayne S. Noches on 20 Jun 2017 09:55

SCOTUS Smokes Ban on ‘Racially Disparaging’ Trademarks

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Monday, holding that a law prohibiting “disparaging” trademarks violates the First Amendment.
The unanimous Court in Matal v. Tam struck down a provision of the Lanham Act, the main law on trademarks, that barred the Patent and Trademark Office from issuing any trademark protections to marks that “may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

This case concerned a rock band called the “The Slants,” a reference to the racial slur for Asians. When Simon Tam, the band’s Asian-American frontman, tried to register his group’s name with the trademark office, he was told he could not get a valid trademark because the name was offensive to Asians. Before the Court, Tam’s attorneys argued that his intention was to “reclaim” the term “slants” and subvert its offensive potential.

The anti-disparagement provision, 15 USC §1052(a), has rarely had any practical effect, but has come to public notice in recent years as left-leaning advocates and public officials sought to use it to invalidate “offensive” trademarks. Most prominently, the Washington Redskins football team, who have twice had their trademark protections revoked for having a name that “disparages” American Indians.

Writing for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito reasoned that the entire purpose behind the provision rendered it facially unconstitutional. “It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend,” he wrote.

In contravention of this principle, the Patent and Trademark Office devised a test to determine whether a trademark was too offensive for the federal government to protect. If a “substantial composite, although not necessarily a majority, of the referenced group would find the proposed mark . . . to be disparaging in the context of contemporary attitudes,” the trademark could not be registered.

This test, by disfavoring a certain subset of speech specifically on the view it expressed, constituted “viewpoint discrimination,” a fundamental limit on government’s power to regulate private speech.

The provision was not saved by the government’s arguments that trademark protection was a matter of “government speech” or was a “subsidy” over which the first Amendment did not apply in its broadest sense. “If private speech could be passed off as government speech by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints,” the opinion reads:

Holding that the registration of a trade-mark converts the mark into government speech would constitute a huge and dangerous extension of the government-speech doctrine, for other systems of government registration (such as copyright) could easily be characterized in the same way.

A concurring opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by the Court’s more liberal justices, called the policy “the essence of viewpoint discrimination,” and determined there was no need to even consider the government speech and subsidy arguments.

The same law was held unconstitutional on the same grounds by an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit in 2015. The government, then represented by Obama-appointed Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, petitioned to the Supreme Court in a last attempt to save the law. Monday’s ruling by the nations highest court cements the end of the seldom enforced provision.
Source
Wayne S. Noches
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 15:04
Purpose of your visit?: News
Dogs...can you hear me, Dogs?


Share On:

Share on Facebook FacebookShare on Twitter TwitterShare on Orkut OrkutShare on Reddit RedditShare on VK VKShare on Tumblr TumblrShare on Google+ Google+

Postby pod on 20 Jun 2017 11:44

Re: SCOTUS Smokes Ban on ‘Racially Disparaging’ Trademarks

Amazing. It was an 8-0 washout (Gorsuch wasn't eligible to rule on it because the case was argued before he was sworn in) and a huge victory over political correctness. Whether it's via legislation or bureaucracy, the government has no place restricting speech.

And with every fart in the wind being called "hate speech" these days, the effects of this ruling extend far beyond trademark law. Hate speech is still speech and shouldn't be censored. We walk that line, then what? Fines for violating the Verbal Morality Statute? Executions for not putting all 58 genders on your website's contact form?

Even RBG had a moment of clarity during her brief waking hours and ruled in favor.

The irony is that it took an Asian band, looking to "take back" a racial term, to bring this forth.

Go SCOTUS!
User avatar
pod
Kaptain Kook
 
Posts: 39088
Joined: 14 Dec 2007 17:35
Location: miami
Purpose of your visit?: 57-N-231
Founder of the Minton Yacht Club.

Раз, два, три!

Postby LeVeL on 20 Jun 2017 11:57

Re: SCOTUS Smokes Ban on ‘Racially Disparaging’ Trademarks

I am glad SCOTUS ruled the way they did. I remember reading about this somtime ago and couldn't believe they were not allowed to trademark the name. They had all the right especially since they were ASIAN.

I believe this would of been ruled differently if it was an all White Band though.

What was said on the video below is so true. Its one thing to say what you want, but its another to be a decent person. If you want to say things for the sole reason of hurting people, then dont hide behind Free Speech when someone kicks you in the face.

phpBB [media]
User avatar
LeVeL
 
Posts: 11689
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 00:17
Right-Wingers gonna Hate

Postby pod on 20 Jun 2017 13:16

Re: SCOTUS Smokes Ban on ‘Racially Disparaging’ Trademarks

Freedom comes with risk, and that's fine.
User avatar
pod
Kaptain Kook
 
Posts: 39088
Joined: 14 Dec 2007 17:35
Location: miami
Purpose of your visit?: 57-N-231
Founder of the Minton Yacht Club.

Раз, два, три!


Return to talk about Anything

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


cron