Gay Patriot Header Image

Some Good News on the Free Speech Front

Posted by V the K at 2:27 pm - June 19, 2017.
Filed under: Free Speech,Freedom

By an 8-0 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the right of band made up of Asian-American members to call themselves ‘The Slants.’ The band applied to trademark their name and were denied by the Patent and Trademark Office under 15 U.S.C. Section 1502(a) which prohibits the registration of a trademark that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” All eight justices (Justice Gorsuch joined the court after the case was argued) held this anti-disparagement provision flatly unconstitutional.

[N]o matter how the point is phrased, [the] unmistakable thrust [of the government’s argument] is this: The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

This is the precise opposite of what social justice wankers are being taught at Berkeley, Yale, and other leftist Asylums of Higher Learning.

Share

6 Comments »

  1. That is great!

    The Supremes can die off, but the precedent will be there – at least for a decade or two. The SJWs may stay ignorant of it – but at least it has to be taught in law schools.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 19, 2017 @ 3:33 pm - June 19, 2017

  2. Washington Redskins hopeful…

    Comment by Ignatius — June 19, 2017 @ 4:03 pm - June 19, 2017

  3. I only learned today that “Redskins” was invented as a play on “Red Sox”. (Baseball vs. football, both originally in Boston.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 19, 2017 @ 4:42 pm - June 19, 2017

  4. Which means that the reason for removing the Trademark status of Washington Redskins was unconstitutional and the Trademark must stand.

    Comment by Craig Smith — June 19, 2017 @ 5:07 pm - June 19, 2017

  5. @ ILC: I had always read that the name was chosen by the players as an affectionate and (in their minds) respectful reference to the American Indian heritage of either the head coach or owner.

    Comment by Sean L — June 19, 2017 @ 5:38 pm - June 19, 2017

  6. And in the Washington Redskins case it makes no difference at all to these twits that the team and management go out of their way to maintain positive relationships with the local tribes, who (for the most part) also support the team.

    Comment by Southern Man — June 19, 2017 @ 10:54 pm - June 19, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

**Note: Your first comment will be held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**

Live preview of comment