SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down two unanimous verdicts in favor of free speech. The first involved a dispute over "offensive" trademarks. Reason reports:
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in favor of the Asian-American dance-rock band The Slants, holding that the First Amendment protects the rights of the band's members to register a trademark in their band's "offensive" name.
At issue in Matal v. Tam was a federal law prohibiting the registration of any trademark that may "disparage...or bring...into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead." The Patent and Trademark Office cited this provision in 2011 when it refused to register a trademark in the name of The Slants, thereby denying the band the same protections that federal law extends to countless other musical acts. Justice Samuel Alito led the Court in striking down the censorious rule. "We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment," Alito wrote. "It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."
The Slants, a band composed of Asian performers, had sought to reclaim the slur against Asians by adopting the name themselves.
The other case involved sex offender Lester Packingham, originally convicted in 2001, who had been prosecuted for making a Facebook post in 2010 about being thankful for having a traffic ticket dismissed. A North Carolina law barred convicted sex offenders from a broad range of social media and web activities, leading Packingham to be arrested again. Again, the SCOTUS justices unanimously found the law to be an over-broad restriction of speech and overturned it 8-0.
In both cases, multiple concurring opinions were filed. The justices reached their conclusions for various legal reasons, but they all agreed that offensive speech should be protected and that even heinous acts like prior sex offenses do not deprive people of free speech.
SCOTUSblog has more detailed coverage:
Matal v. Tam: Court documents/commentary and opinion [PDF]
Packingham v. North Carolina: Court documents and analysis of the opinion [PDF]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:54PM (16 children)
I read the "about" page for "The Crackers" [facebook.com]; there is nothing about the word "cracker" having anything to do with the slur, or the need to reclaim it, or whatever.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:11PM (15 children)
The response demonstrated that there was indeed at least one band with that name.
You lost that argument very quickly.
Your follow-up whining "but that's not what I meant, I meant other clauses to be included in my question" now tells us that you can't even form your thoughts into cogent sentences correctly - is that supposed to endear us to you further?
Of course, your original post indicates that you do not understand how the dominant majority have never been downtrodden, discriminated against, disenfranchised, or even interned merely because of their whiteness. (Though some minority sub-groups of the whites have been, such as the Irish, and indeed you can find bands that call themselves "The Micks" who are playing on their Irish identity.)
Why am I wasting time writing this? I'm pretty sure you're beyond hope.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:27PM
Your argument is vapid. Human language is far more complex than one sentence taken out of context; you have to read between the lines, otherwise you're just a useless pedant.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:39PM (1 child)
Your argument is vapid. Human language is far more complex than one sentence taken out of context; you have to read between the lines, otherwise you're just a useless pedant!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @02:50AM
so's ur mom.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:29PM (3 children)
Absolutely agree. Also, it's relevant to note that shocking or "offensive" names for pop music bands are pretty commonplace. There often seems to be an idea of taking some words that are "offensive" and associating with them to give you a sort of unique power. It doesn't have to be about race or some grand political statement -- rock bands do this with other random mildly offensive (or more than mildly...) terms all the time. Punk bands may have set the standard for this a few decades back, though now those names often seem tame to us today (e.g., Sex Pistols).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:07PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:58PM
I liked "Banned from the pub" by Peter and the test tube babies, even though I was too young to even get into a pub at the time.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday June 22 2017, @12:45PM
There's always the Grindcore band Anal Cunt. Too bad Seth is dead.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:36PM (1 child)
Your argument is vapid! Human language is far more complex than one sentence taken out of context; you have to read between the lines, otherwise you're just a useless pedant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:53PM
Good grief! Make up your mind where you want to put the exclamation mark!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:08PM
Your argument is vapid! Human language is far more complex than one sentence taken out of context; you have to read between the lines, otherwise you're just a useless pedant!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:58PM
Your argument is vapid. Human language is far more complex than one sentence taken out of context; you have to read between the lines, otherwise you're just a useless pedant...
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:43PM
Your argument is vapid; human language is far more complex than one sentence taken out of context—you have to read between the lines, otherwise you're just a useless pedant...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 21 2017, @12:19AM
Actually, I was born in the 1960s - and right from the early 1970s through today, my White Male father has been discriminated against for hiring choices, passed over for blacks, females, and especially black females with lower qualifications for promotions, and even part time positions.
Even today, the company that I work for will not hire a white male unless they can also hire a "balancing" minority at the same time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @02:37AM
Your argument is vapid: Human language is far more complex than one sentence taken out of context; you have to read between the lines, otherwise you're just a useless pedant!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @04:47AM
Your argument is vapid: Human language is far more complex than one sentence taken out of context; you have to read between the lines, otherwise you're just a useless pedant!