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]
Related Stories
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
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
It's official. You can get FUCT, US Supremes tell scandalized bureaucrats in rude trademark spat
When Erik Brunetti in 2011 first tried to obtain a trademark for his clothing company FUCT, the US Patent and Trademark Office blocked his application.
The USPTO relied on a portion of the Lanham Act that allows trademarks to be denied if they "[consist of or comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter." So Brunetti challenged the decision in court.
On Monday this week, the US Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision affirmed a December 2017 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that found the act's trademark limitation violates the US Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
Pointing at its own 2017 ruling in Matal v. Tam, which said the USPTO could not deny music group The Slants a trademark just because the term might offend some people, the Supreme Court told the agency in so many words to get FUCT on its registry. "[T]he 'immoral or scandalous' bar is substantially overbroad," the majority opinion, from Justice Elena Kagan, reads. "There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment."
[...] In the past, trademark applications for beverages "Marijuana Cola" and "Ko Kane," for clothing line "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," were denied for being scandalous. But trademarks have been granted for "FCUK" and "Handjob Nails and Spa."
Also at NYT, Courthouse News Service, NPR, Reuters, National Review, CNN, and Vice.
Previously: Can You Trademark an Offensive Name or Not? US Supreme Court to Decide
Two Unanimous SCOTUS Victories for Free Speech
U.S. Supreme Court Considers Issue of Trademark Protection for Profanity
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:03PM (3 children)
Glad to see them standing up for at least one of my rights, even if they do routinely fuck us all on the rest of them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:15PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:27PM (1 child)
I'm all for objective, instead of subjective, evaluations so don't consider this an argument against the ruling.
But....consider the fact that a Trademark is a government provided infringement of my free speech. I can't walking around calling myself Coca-Cola, some people can't sell software using their own names, [wikipedia.org] etc.
With that in mind, restricting the issuance of these free-speech-violation-permits based on reasonable measures seems appropriate to me.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:11PM
What you mentioned provides fraud (a crime) protection to citizens. What we're talking about provides hurt feelings (not a crime) protection to snowflakes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nofsck Ingcloo on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:15PM (2 children)
Two, actually. Now if we could just get SCOTUS to fucus on the fourth....
1984 was not written as an instruction manual.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:07PM (1 child)
Isn't that what they have been doing?
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fishybell on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:48PM
I'm pretty sure they meant ficus.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:26PM (31 children)
You know why there's no band named "The Crackers"? Because white people have better things to do than dwell on identity—it's the best thing about being white: You are an individual; there is not even a Whitish Community Center.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:34PM
You don't have to be white to not buy into identity politics. Just have to have a finely honed bullshit detector.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 20 2017, @01:37PM (22 children)
Open mouth, Insert foot: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+crackers+band [google.com]
(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!
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:44PM
I read the "about" page for "The Crackers" [facebook.com] [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: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:41PM
I read the "about" page for "The Crackers" [facebook.com] [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: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 21 2017, @12:17AM
Did you not recognize the Troll? Do not feed the Trolls, it only encourages them.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @02:41AM
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: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @04:51AM
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: 2) by Taibhsear on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:26PM (2 children)
See, you say that but...
https://www.discogs.com/search/?q=the+crackers&type=all [discogs.com]
http://irish-american.org/ [irish-american.org]
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ [english-heritage.org.uk]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Heritage_Center [wikipedia.org]
http://swedishamericanmuseum.org/2.0/ [swedishamericanmuseum.org]
http://www.rach-c.org/ [rach-c.org]
I could go on and on and on and on. Sorry to break your alternative reality bubble.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:13PM (1 child)
English Heritage is a UK charity that helps maintain historical buildings/monuments/gardens/etc.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:26PM
Fucking English Heritage cracker-ass wankers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:02PM (1 child)
I know a black comedian who had a joke about how difficult it is to come up with a slur for white people that they actually get offended by. His punchline was settling on calling them "broke".
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:16PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:12PM (1 child)
Gee, I wish everyone could be born with genetics that prevent a wide range of assaults. It would just be so nice if everyone CHOSE not to be discriminated against.
I'm curious, do you attend church? Do you identify as a Republican?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 22 2017, @02:54AM
I'm Jewish, and my country doesnt know what a "Republican" is. Most of the 7 billion+ people on the planet are not silly americans you insensitive clod.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:32PM
You know why there's no band named "The Crackers"? Because white people have better things to do than dwell on identity—it's the best thing about being white: You are an individual; there is not even a Whitish Community Center!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:41PM
You know why there's no band named "The Crackers"? Because white people have better things to do than dwell on identity—it's the best thing about being white: You are an individual; there is not even a Whitish Community Center...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 20 2017, @05:50PM (3 children)
As has been observed countless times by better people than me, free speech ain't free unless it's for everyone. No one's inciting violence or shouting fire in a crowded theater here.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @06:14PM (1 child)
I mean, sure. You'll probably get prosecuted for those things, but that doesn't make such prosecution correct.
The people who actually commit violence are the ones who should be prosecuted.
The ones who stampede upon hearing "fire" should be prosecuted; or, the ones who own the theater should make it clear that as part of admittance to the premises, one promises to compensate the theater for causing an undue disturbance—it's a civil matter.
Any little bit of control over speech that you give a government just transfers ever more control from the weak individual to the strong State.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @01:00AM
The fire in a crowded theater is an urban myth. I forget the details.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @08:05AM
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is actually a term used to outlaw political speech that disagreed with the ruling party at the time.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @07:18PM
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, Disagree) by wisnoskij on Tuesday June 20 2017, @08:55PM (2 children)
First off, No you cannot just trademark common words.
A band could not just call themselves The Grapes and trademark the word Grapes, this does not magically change when you swap "Grapes" for "Crackers" or "Slants".
The law prohibiting the registration of any trademark that may "disparage" some group might of been overturned, but they still cannot trademark "Slants", because Slants is a common word and I have the right to use it however I like without being bombarded with trademark violations.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:47PM
You may be thinking of these:
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness#Descriptive_marks [wikipedia.org]
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness#Generic_terms [wikipedia.org]
If a band used the name "The Band" (as a famous band did), "The Musicians" or the like, they could expect difficulty in trademarking it. "Grapes," however, is not a term commonly used in relation to music, so I'd expect it to be fine. The Beatles had a record label called Apple Records, and successfully trademarked that name; I think I remember reading that the former Apple Computer negotiated the use of the trademark, on beginning its own music sales. Had the record company been simply called "Records," difficulty in trademarking it could have been expected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Band [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:56PM
I forgot to say: the "Windows" trademark granted for Microsoft's windowing system has been criticised as being a generic trademark. In Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com Inc., when Microsoft sought to take over the lindows.com domain, Lindows asserted that the trademark was generic.
http://www.finnegan.com/microsoftcorpvlindowscominc/ [finnegan.com]
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3311641/Windows+Generic+or+Trademark.htm [internetnews.com]
-- http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/IsWindowsGeneric.aspx [inta.org]
The case was settled out of court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc.#Settlement [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @09:02PM
You know why there's no band named "The Crackers"?! Because white people have better things to do than dwell on identity—it's the best thing about being white: You are an individual; there is not even a Whitish Community Center.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:26PM
Mr. Gorsuch didn't participate in these cases, probably because deliberations began before he was appointed:
-- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf [supremecourt.gov]
-- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf [supremecourt.gov]
"J." is a short form for "Justice."
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20 2017, @11:46PM
You know why there's no band named "The Crackers"?! Because white people have better things to do than dwell on identity; it's the best thing about being white: You are an individual—there is not even a Whitish Community Center.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21 2017, @04:53AM
You know why there's no band named "The Crackers"? Because white people have better things to do than dwell on identity; it's the best thing about being white: You are an individual—there is not even a Whitish Community Center.