Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday April 16 2019, @06:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the they're-screwed dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:31PM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:31PM (#830556)

    Why should the government care if a proposed trademark is crass and vulgar? Let the applicant pay his fee and register the name.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:40PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:40PM (#830560)

    exactly. none of their goddamned business. is it infringing on someone else's trademark? no? then fucking grant it you dumb motherfuckers!

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:45PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 16 2019, @07:45PM (#830561)

      Rushing to trademark Santorum personal lubricants.

    • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:12PM (12 children)

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:12PM (#830577) Journal

      none of their goddamned business

      Totally agree.

      From TFS:

      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."

      So? How does this, in way, provide the government with any legitimate authority to override the first amendment?

      Oh, hey, that's right — it doesn't.

      --
      Wow. Apparently it's "rude" to ask the parents
      of a kid on a leash if it was a rescue.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:30PM (11 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @08:30PM (#830585)

        To be fair, the government is not preventing that person from using the offensive language on their product (that'd be a clear First case).

        They contend that a Trademark is not a right, but a privilege, and that the people do not find a compelling interest in protecting your exclusivity to the right to use specific unpleasant language in the public space.

        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday April 16 2019, @09:02PM (10 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @09:02PM (#830605) Journal

          Not "the people." The government.

          The government is not the people. That's a very important, and very large, distinction. One we should not allow the government's misuse of the word to water down. Particularly when the government is working to control the people in spite of the constitution, instead of serving them according to the constitution, as has been the case for some time now.

          Awarding trademarks, or not, is one thing; they're a tool to leverage business and tend to have value to the people as such, the more so if some form of exclusivity is provided. The authorization, and therefore the authority to do this is, in general form at least, present in the constitution's article I, section 8, clause 8.

          Policing the people's trademark language is entirely another thing, and presents squarely as a first amendment issue. Not only is there no power to control what language people use to express themselves authorized in the constitution, the first amendment explicitly denies that power to the government.

          The fact that they exercise such force (via the FCC or any other mechanism that imposes "these words cannot be uttered / shown / printed / etc.) should not ever be understood as anything but blatant arrogation of unauthorized power.

          --
          Diapers and Politicians should be changed often.
          Both for the same reason.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 16 2019, @09:34PM (9 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday April 16 2019, @09:34PM (#830631)

            > The government is not the people.

            You should consider fixing that, before it metastisizes.

            > Awarding trademarks, or not, is one thing; they're a tool to leverage business and tend to have value to the people as such,
            > the more so if some form of exclusivity is provided. The authorization, and therefore the authority to do this is,
            > in general form at least, present in the constitution

            So, the government, of behalf of the interest of the people, then ... Which is exactly what I wrote, if you read me again.

            > constitution's article I, section 8, clause 8

            Patents and copyrights are legally different from trademarks, by the way.

            > The fact that they exercise such force (via the FCC or any other mechanism that imposes
            > "these words cannot be uttered / shown / printed / etc.) should not ever be understood
            > as anything but blatant arrogation of unauthorized power.

            The same way that I am requested to keep my nuclear meltdowns on my own property, or for a much better parallel not rent public signage to broadcast porn, The People reserve the right to attach conditions of proper usage when leasing out The People's frequency spectrum. The broadcasters purchasing the right to temporarily conduct business over The People's spectrum are not coerced into doing so if they do not like the terms.
            That old thing about being civilized implying some agreed limits on antisocial behavior...

            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:31PM (8 children)

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:31PM (#831171) Journal

              You should consider fixing that, before it metastisizes.

              Too late. The authorized government was wholly consumed by the cancer many years ago. Any hope for the desired constitutional republic was lost with the rise of the now pure oligarchy here in the USA.

              So, the government, of behalf of the interest of the people

              No: The government, of behalf of the interest of the government.

              Patents and copyrights are legally different from trademarks, by the way.

              Yes, however, they're in the same ballpark; they're a mechanism that falls cleanly into the author portion of:

              ...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

              The same way that I am requested to keep my nuclear meltdowns on my own property

              No. Nothing like. Forbidding abridgment of nuclear meltdowns is not an explicit constitutional limit on the federal government.

              or for a much better parallel not rent public signage to broadcast porn

              Again, the feds have no constitutional authorization to impose such a limitation, and in fact are specifically enjoined not to by the first amendment:

              Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

              The  People  government reserves the right to attach conditions of  proper usage  abridged speech when leasing out The  People  government's frequency spectrum.

              FTFY

              The broadcasters purchasing the right to temporarily conduct business over The  People  government's spectrum are not coerced into doing so if they do not like the terms and they have no other option whatsoever outside of no broadcasting at all.

              FTFY, too.

              That old thing about being civilized implying some agreed limits on antisocial behavior...

              Yeah, actually, that old thing about the government being limited by the constitution that actually authorizes its existence.

              Of course, the oligarchy pays little attention to the constitution at all, unless it can use it to further its goals of further consolidating the control of the country by the rich and powerful; that's typically done with dog whistles and misdirection, well seasoned with sophistry and SCOTUS-driven redefinitions that range from subtly wrongful to outright absurdly so.

              Interstate commerce? It means Intrastate commerce now!

              No infringement on keeping and carrying arms? Goody goody, let's infringe like mad!

              No abridging speech? Well, except when we want to, of course. Here, have a gag order. Otherwise, get over there in your "free speech zone" and you can say whatever you want cleanly out of the hearing of the people you needed to hear you. And by the way, here's a whole list of stuff you can't say at all. What's your security clearance again?

              No abridging assembly? Um, well, let's see if we want to give you a permit.

              No warrants shall issue? We don' need no steenkin' warrants anyway.

              No unreasonable search? Hey, no problem, we'll just say it's reasonable. While completely ignoring the constitutionally provided definition of reasonable, of course. Plus, you know, within 100 miles of a border, we can do anything we want, because... um... BECAUSE!

              No double jeopardy? Heh heh heh... we'll just claim it's civil, not criminal, and slap em again. Totally works, because... um... ALSO BECAUSE!

              No ex post facto laws? Oh hey, sure, why not? Have some more, they're tasty! If it seems really tough to do, no worries, again, just use civil law and pretend the ex post facto clause is only applicable to criminal law. Totally works. We will crush you with additional punishments subsequent to your initial sentencing. We like that. A lot. Really a lot.

              No compelling someone to be a witness against themselves? Hey Leroy, you got the bucket and the water? Or do we not do that until we get the defendant out of jail for refusing to answer and stick 'em in Guantanamo? I can't remember. Oh well. Let's see how they like spending time in pound-em-in-the-ass and/or shiv-em-with-something-stabby prison for not answering. So we don't have to torture them. After all, we won't be torturing them! It was totally them prisners, Martha! Not Our Fault! And besides, losing your job, the associated income, probably anything you have a loan on, and any ability to get a new job wouldn't compel anyone, amirite? Of course I are.

              No private property be taken for public use, without just compensation? Well, except, lemme see, yeah, I've got it: Property has no rights, so it can be seized without a warrant and used any way we like. Hey, this works great.

              Speedy trial? Yeah, we'll get to you maybe next year. Or the year after. We're busy, ya know. Be careful about taking up that chocolate on your pillow in the meantime, m'kay?

              No excessive bail or fines? Hey, Mr. makes-20k-a-year, we've got a million dollar fine for you. How fun is that? (the only acceptable answer is "very fun, your honor, may I have another?")

              No cruel or unusual punishment? Your anus is real stretchy, right? Oh anyway, that's the other prisoners doing that to you, nothing to do with us (whistles and walks away.)

              Powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people? Oh, hey, commerce clause. You know, the one that says we can regulate  inter  intrastate commerce. Hey! Did you know your telephone is an "instrument of interstate commerce", and so anything you do with it is a federal matter? Oh yeah.

              Sophism. It's what's for dinner. And Lunch. And Breakfast. And Elevensies. And snacks. If all that's too much for you, here, we have a diet for you that's entirely sophist. You'll stay trim or your diet will be bread and water, comrade.

              And there's no fixing this. This is not a slippery slope. Constitutionally and authorized-government-wise speaking, this is a hellhole. The bottom of a hellhole. Or, to return to your metaphor, the whole fucking thing is cancerous.

              </RANT>

              --
              Jst Sy N to Lssy Cmprssn.

              • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:02PM (4 children)

                by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:02PM (#831233)

                "I believe that my country is not the heaven of freedom and justice it claims to be. It makes me very angry. I shall harvest the energy of my anger and focus it into ranty posts on obscure websites where it amount to preaching to the choir. Tremble, Evil Corporations and your puppet politicians!"

                Are you going to do something useful about it, just take it like the SHEEPLE, or move out ?

                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @09:22PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @09:22PM (#831318)

                  Those aren't mutually exclusive. You can rant on random websites and try to enact change in real life.

                • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:13AM (2 children)

                  by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:13AM (#831419) Journal

                  Are you going to do something useful about it, just take it like the SHEEPLE, or move out?

                  That's very presumptuous of you. You don't know me. I'm 62. I might have done a thing — or even two — by now.

                  --
                  I have neither the time or the crayons to explain.

                  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:22AM (1 child)

                    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:22AM (#831425)

                    Do feel free to elaborate, so we might all follow your example.

                    • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:43AM

                      by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:43AM (#831438) Journal

                      Do feel free to elaborate, so we might all follow your example.

                      You sure you want that? What if it's not what you expect?

                      --
                      I've fallen off your lawn and I can't get up.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:08PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:08PM (#831240)

                "No infringement on keeping and carrying arms? Goody goody, let's infringe like mad!"

                i agree with your overall rant but the 2a is currently very infringed. the people are supposed to have firearms in line with "current military and police use" so the gov doesn't have more firepower than the people. not this hunting/personal protection only bullshit.

                • (Score: 1, Troll) by bob_super on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:21PM

                  by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:21PM (#831289)

                  I'm suing the city, because they won't widen/streghten the road to ten lanes to the nearest airport. How else am I supposed to driver my stealth bomber out of the garage when it's fully loaded with nuclear cruise missiles ?

                • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:40AM

                  by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:40AM (#831437) Journal

                  i agree with your overall rant but the 2a is currently very infringed.

                  Not sure what your "but" is for there — that's what I was saying.

                  the people are supposed to be able to  have firearms  keep and carry arms

                  FTFY

                  in line with "current military and police use" so the gov doesn't have more firepower than the people. not this hunting/personal protection only bullshit.

                  No, there's nothing at all in the 2A about "current military and police use", either pro or con. The reference to militia in the explicatory or prefatory phrase was written to refer to the majority of able bodied men, not something like a government controlled national guard (there was no such thing, that was the point, in fact); the "well regulated" phraseology in the same section was written to indicate consistency of arms. There were specific laws written in the years just subsequent to this that specified what that consistency meant; so much shot, so much powder, etc. In the context of the day, what they meant and intended was quite clear.

                  In any case, this section is not the instruction to government, it is just (obviously part of) the explanation for what follows. Certainly no one of that time would have said "no, you won't need arms to hunt for food", for instance. So we know the explicatory phrase is only the tip of the iceberg... and yet it doesn't matter much, because it is, after all, an explanation. The instruction, the explicit restriction on the government to not infringe, is crystal clear.

                  The 2A, as presently constituted, explicitly forbids government infringement on the keeping and carrying of arms. There's no limit on that. There obviously should be, but they're very much afraid to try to change anything significant in the bill of rights (actually any part of the constitution), lest they let the constitutional convention dragon out of its box. So instead, they rely on arrogation of power in the form of unauthorized law.

                  Personally, I think the 2A is in extreme need of revision; but as it stands, pretty much every arms law on the books is in blatant violation of the constitution. The government is very much in the habit of doing whatever the fuck it wants, whenever it wants to. Which is one of the key reasons why we don't actually have a constitutional republic, but instead, an oligarchy. It is also why today the constitution is, at best, only treated as an advisory document. If the government wants to violate it, it will. As been demonstrated over and over, and often enough such malfuckery has subsequently been rubber-stamped by the incompetent puppets in the SCOTUS.

                  --
                  You can't fix stupid. But you can elect it.