The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.
The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.
U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional
Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.
The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.
U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional
Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.
The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.
U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional
Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.
The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.
U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional
Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.
Libertarian here; I'm all for freedom of speech
well, at least now the GOP can utilize their full name, Grumpy Old Phucks, instead of an acronym ..........
I guess this also means that terrorist can still recruit via the WWW?
Jack & Walter would rather you use another comparison because your shtick is getting old.
View attachment 67218974
how about Grumpy Old ******s? Donny could grab some of that stuff .........
I've grabbed a few myself in some dark back alley dives overseas.
Who am I to judge?
hopefully you didn't catch anything you can't get rid of ...............
The Court is supposed to be above political influence and should rely only on the Constitution, precedent, and good judgment. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about here.
An 8-0 or 9-0 decision usually means that there is very little if anything in their decision to argue against legally.
The Court is supposed to be above political influence and should rely only on the Constitution, precedent, and good judgment. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about here.
An 8-0 or 9-0 decision usually means that there is very little if anything in their decision to argue against legally.
not sure where you thought I was complaining. I did say I agreed with the decision. Just brought it up for discussion.
Pretty sure the OP was applauding the decision in light of all the 5-4 and 4-4 decisions that have plagued the court recently
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.
The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.
U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional
Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.
The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.
U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional
Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.
In post #2, I clearly highlighted a complaining phrase of the OP. Now, check out what I said earlier in light of that.
Is this gonna be the new nigger? Only Asians can call each other slants or can I start doing it without fear of being labeled something bad?
Is this gonna be the new nigger? Only Asians can call each other slants or can I start doing it without fear of being labeled something bad?
We are all conditioned to consider that as offensive. However, there is a good point involved. If we are going to "outlaw" a word, is it not racist to only outlaw it for some people?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?