SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Supreme Court Dances Around The F-Word With Real Potential Financial Consequences
Dirty words make it to the U.S. Supreme Court only occasionally. One of those occasions came Monday, in a case involving a clothing line named "FUCT." The issue is whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted unconstitutionally when it refused to grant trademark protection to the brand name. And, for the justices, the immediate problem was how to discuss the the F-word without actually saying it.
The "FUCT" clothing line, created by designer Eric Brunetti, is mainly hoodies, loose pants, shorts and T-shirts, all with the brand name prominently displayed.
[...] Brunetti's case got a boost two years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that an Asian-American band calling itself "The Slants" could not be denied trademark protection. The trademark office had turned the band down, because it deemed the name racially "disparaging," but the court said the denial amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Dealing with the brand name "FUCT" proved a bit more daunting in the Supreme Court chamber Monday. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart referred to the brand name as a "profane past participle form of a well-known word of profanity and perhaps the paradigmatic word of profanity in our language."
Also at Reuters.
Previously: Two Unanimous SCOTUS Victories for Free Speech
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:29PM (7 children)
Yup.
As much as I don't really want to explain to my children why people are walking around with swear words on their clothing rather than just in their mouths and on their tattoos and bumper stickers, I'm pretty sure that's a straight first amendment case. Not quite sure why it had to go to the Supremes.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:36PM
There might even be less vulgar shirts around if the guy gets his trademark and doesn't have to compete with (as many) counterfeits.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:54PM (5 children)
Seems pretty easy to explain to kids. Those people are idiots and are trying to get attention.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:26PM (4 children)
Yes, but kids are also idiots always trying to get attention (hummm, could it be a coincidence?), and I'm not delighted at having to explain to them why they shouldn't be like their friends, or whatever moron is popular today.
(Score: 1) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:46PM
Hmm, mine isn't that age yet, so I might still come around to your view. With my kid, I keep disparaging comments to a minimum, hoping that when I do say something negative, it will send a strong message.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stormreaver on Tuesday April 16 2019, @09:20PM (2 children)
If you can't easily explain to your kids what "fuck" means, then I don't think it's the kids who have the issue. It's sad to see such rampant emotional damage present in parents that they can't explain simple biological functions to their kids.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @10:41PM (1 child)
I can. That doesn't mean I should be happy to see it plastered everywhere.
You're drifting off-topic.
I've met many 20-somethings who include swear words in every single sentence. It's their right. But this motherfucking kind of bullshit lack of fucking respect and sense of fucking appropriateness totally sucks balls, and you damn well fucking know that the shitty motherfucking scumbags are gonna be seen as assholes or worthless whores, irregardless [sorry] of whether they have more education and IQ than you and I.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday April 17 2019, @03:08AM
OK, but next time wash your mouth out.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.