Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday October 01 2016, @12:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the who-defines-offensive dept.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would decide, once and for all, whether federal intellectual property regulators can refuse to issue trademarks with disparaging or inappropriate names.

At the center of the issue is a section of trademark law that actually forbids the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from approving a trademark if it "consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute."

The case before the justices, which they will hear sometime in the upcoming term beginning in October, concerns the Portland-based Asian-American rock band called the Slants. Previously, decisions have come down on both sides regarding trademarking offensive names. The most notable denial is likely the name of the NFL's Washington franchise, "Redskins." But lesser known denials include "Stop the Islamization of America," "The Christian Prostitute," "AMISHHOMO," "Mormon Whiskey," "Ride Hard Retard," "Abort the Republicans," and "Democrats Shouldn't Breed."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/can-you-trademark-an-offensive-name-or-not-us-supreme-court-to-decide/


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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:04PM (#408746)

    Trademark is the opposite of free speech, its the government granting a monopoly on speech. Any arguments for giving out those monopolies can't rely on the first amendment. And the part of the constitution that gives the government the right to issue trademarks - commerce clause - doesn't place any limits on how the government goes about it.

    • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:09PM

      by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:09PM (#408749)

      That does not make any sense. In a very real way the government saying, you cannot name your product/company X is an attack on the first amendment. The government is not supposed to decide trademarks on moral, "what words/phrases are we going to allow you to say", grounds. That is not why we have a Trademark system.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:20PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:20PM (#408754)

        Its anti MPCC-like tactic

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code [wikipedia.org]

        For the sake of argument lets say an evangelical church wanted to eliminate the word "fuck" from the american vocabulary.

        They could trademark "fuck" and then license it at very favorable rates (like a trillion dollars per use)

        Ta Da, no more "fuck"

        Its an anti-censorship law.

        There is also the intellectual level argument. Surely, Plutarch, if he were alive today, deserves some variety of government protection. Me stubbing my toe and reflexively exclaiming "fuck" doesn't seem worthy of government protection. I mean you need a line somewhere otherwise people are going to trademark farts.

        • (Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:07PM

          by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:07PM (#408774)

          > They could trademark "fuck" and then license it at very favorable rates (like a trillion dollars per use)
          > Ta Da, no more "fuck"

          That is not how Trademark law works.

        • (Score: 2) by quintessence on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:12PM

          by quintessence (6227) on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:12PM (#408776)

          Trademarks are specific to products/services. Trademarking "fuck" would have no meaning unless it was associated with such.

          Not to mention your mythical evangelical church would have to spend a great deal of money to defend said trademark. Linoleum was once trademarked and has lost its standing.

          Me stubbing my toe and reflexively exclaiming "fuck" doesn't seem worthy of government protection

          Actually I can think of nothing more worthy of government protection than your natural utterance to pain. If there was anything more encompassing of free expression, I can't think of it ("in some sections of hell you aren't even allowed to scream").

          This is the government attempting to avoid controversy by the very controversial act of regulating speech. Sambo's was trademarked previously. Social norms change, justifications for censorship do not.

          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday October 01 2016, @08:18PM

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 01 2016, @08:18PM (#408866) Journal

            Yes, but they also aren't supposed to be descriptive.

            So the proposed trademark could only regulate the use of the term in trade which did not involve fucking. (I don't know whether metaphorical use would count.)

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
            • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:07PM

              by art guerrilla (3082) on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:07PM (#409060)

              welllll...
              again, as alluded to, that both ain't how it works, nor what it was intended to protect (what it ACTUALLY 'protects' as a matter of the korporatocracy getting it's tentacles into it, is another thing)...
              first, (EXCEPTING that both the patent and trademark offices' new ! improved ! approach is to 'approve' *everything*, and let the kourts sort it out in the wash), you are *supposed* to be approving a specific use and appearance of a trademarked brand: it is NOT just a 'trademark' on 'fuck' itself, but on 'fuck' within the context of a brand or model of 'fuck's potato chips', or 'fuck's mechanical service', or 'fucks massage parlor'...
              further, this is in combination with a specific type or theme of trade dress, in the form of packaging, colors, graphics, logos, etc... again, NOT just 'fuck' for fuck's sake... 8^) (again, NOTWITHSTANDING the apparent capitulation of the PTO to 'approve' trademarks on colors, etc... much like copyright on algorithms/programs, they are simply wrongheaded...)
              secondly, the 'protection' is *supposed* to inure to the *consumer*: the problem trademark is solving, is that unscrupulous bidness types (who knew any existed !) might either *directly* use *your* trademark to deceive customers, and/or use such closely similar names/packaging to fool consumers into thinking they are getting *GENUINE* 'Fucks Widgets', when they are getting knockoff (presumably inferior) 'Flicks Widgets' w/ the same packaging/logos/colors...
              not a bad summation of the situation, but there is a little more to it than that...
              again, the harsh reality is (similar to much of The Law and simple morality), the korporatocracy has co-opted The System such that trademarks/patents/copyrights (so-called IP) has become another cudgel to bludgeon people and shake down money...
              based on a true story...

              • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 02 2016, @06:59PM

                by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 02 2016, @06:59PM (#409118) Journal

                The article was, I believe, about trademarks rather than about patents. The two shouldn't be mixed as the rules are quite different.

                --
                Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
                • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Sunday October 02 2016, @08:10PM

                  by art guerrilla (3082) on Sunday October 02 2016, @08:10PM (#409130)

                  thank you, but no thank you: i was CLEARLY referring to trademarks in particular in my remarks, BUT ALSO lumped them in with the other SO-CALLED 'IP/Intellectual Property' in an editorial comment in that they are ALL out of control and used for the purposes of the korporatocracy, NOT to protect us 99%...
                  i am very well aware of the differences (in point of fact, you should very well ask that of the respective gummint departments which have obviously and egregiously gone far beyond their charge, and have perverted the system to benefit the korporatocracy), but the overarching point is they are all similarly abused by those who have loads of hungry lawyers on staff, NOT to protect little suzy etsy...

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Saturday October 01 2016, @03:40PM

          by butthurt (6141) on Saturday October 01 2016, @03:40PM (#408803) Journal

          The UK has a similar prohibition:

          Marks which offend this section of the Act fall broadly into three types: those with criminal connotations, those with religious connotations and explicit/taboo signs. Marks offending public policy are likely to offend accepted principles of morality, e.g. illegal drug terminology, although the question of public policy may not arise against marks offending accepted principles of morality, e.g. taboo swear words.

          Anyone can challenge such trademarks in court; this happened with the trademark "FCUK" which had been granted to French Connection Limited, a chain of clothing shops. The trademark was upheld:

          [...] the intrinsic qualities of the mark FCUK are not such as to render it objectionable. It is not the swear word even though it can be used, and has been used, to evoke the swear word. Accordingly the generally accepted moral principle prohibiting the use of swear words does not apply to it.

          -- http://camtrademarks.com/index.php?q=node/28 [camtrademarks.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @10:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @10:32PM (#408886)

          > They could trademark "fuck" and then license it at very favorable rates (like a trillion dollars per use)

          That's not how trademarks work.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:52PM (#408767)

        > That does not make any sense. In a very real way the government saying, you cannot name your product/company X is an attack on the first amendment.

        That is 100% false. You are free to name your company or product anything you like.
        You just won't get the privilege of the government stopping anyone else from using the same name.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:24PM (#408777)

          But why? If trademarks are to exist at all, what valid reason does the government have to say that certain trademarks which contain "offensive" words are not valid? Something being offensive to some people isn't a valid reason to deny a trademark.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:33PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:33PM (#408779)

            > But why? Something being offensive to some people isn't a valid reason to deny a trademark.

            But why not? Something intentionally chosen to demean and intimidate some people is a valid reason to deny special privileges.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @03:18PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @03:18PM (#408795)

              No, it's not, and trademarks were never supposed to be used in this way. Personally, I find all trademarks related to religion highly offensive and I demand that they all be revoked. My subjective sensitivities need to be catered to.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @04:37PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @04:37PM (#408822)

                I'm pretty sure you've already got your wish in that religions can not be trademarked.

                As for being offended, tough shit. You taking offense isn't the same thing as being demeaned or insulted no matter how much you wish to expand the definition.

                • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:21PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:21PM (#408831)

                  I use the word nigger regularly. It's not my problem if niggers take offence to it.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:00PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:00PM (#408842)

                    Use it all you want. You just can't trademark protection for it.

                    • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday October 02 2016, @11:49PM

                      by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Sunday October 02 2016, @11:49PM (#409182)

                      Until1926 there was a product called Nigger Hair pipe tobacco. In that year they changed it to Bigger Hair.

                      They are collectors items now. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't fly today, and apparently became taboo long before I would of believed.

                      --
                      Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:51AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:51AM (#408939)

                  Being demeaned or insulted are not good reasons to deny trademarks, either. And keep in mind that the reason that being demeaned or insulted is seen as a bad thing is because sometimes people take... offense. So it's about offensiveness in the end, which is 100% subjective.

                  I'm pretty sure you've already got your wish in that religions can not be trademarked.

                  Religions, maybe. But if you combine some religious terminology with other words, trademarks may be possible.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:32PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:32PM (#408836)

                It pleases me to hear whiney pusses whine about being offended. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, almost like petting a purring kitty sitting on my chest. Whine away, you little puss.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:53AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:53AM (#408942)

                  Tell that to the government, which apparently wants to deny 'offensive', 'demeaning', and 'insulting' trademarks.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @09:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @09:12PM (#408872)

        With trademarks the government isn't saying whether or not you are allowed to say it. They are deciding whether you are the only one who is allowed to say it.

        Big difference.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:56AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:56AM (#408944)

          That's true, but the fact is that trademarks currently exist. They shouldn't be denying trademarks based on subjective criteria such as how much offense they might cause. If they're going to do that, then we should abolish trademarks completely, for they have shown their bias.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:04PM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:04PM (#408747) Homepage

    Interestingly enough, NWA (Niggas Wit Attitudes) was trademarked in 2000. [justia.com] So the offensive titles with multiple words could just be trademarked as an abbreviation.

    The Slants would be better left just designing a logo and trademarking that instead...maybe a plain yellow smiley face with slanted slits in place of round eyes, perhaps wearing a gong-hat on the head. Or they could change their name to The Zipperheads instead and see if that works. If they are Japanese they could call themselves the Meatballs (because the Japanese rising sun insignia on their aircraft looked like a meatball, as does their modern flag).

    The big hubub about the Redskins is bullshit. Aside from the few loudmouth token minorities, the ones who push for so-called "offensive" names to be changed are White liberal baby-boomers living in gated-communities who think they know better than the minorities themselves, even when the Mexicans told them to fuck off and put Speedy Gonzalez back on the air after those obnoxious White liberals had it taken down for being raciss' 'n' sheeit.

    The female White liberal baby boomers who are advocating for this censorship and affront to American history have herpes from many years of comingling with Black men. Just don't let their husbands and wives know!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:12PM (#408751)

      So I can trademark LiL'Donald and LiL'Ethanol?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @01:51PM (#408765)

      The female White liberal baby boomers who are advocating for this censorship and affront to American history have herpes from many years of comingling with Black men. Just don't let their husbands and wives know!

      With all due respect: a few times now I've read your comments (I don't look at the nick before reading) then I get to the last paragraph where the whole thing takes a sharp turn for the worst. Seriously it's like a conversation with grandma that starts off slightly odd but by the end everyone is trying to get the train back onto the rails before she's running around calling for the extermination of the subhumans.

      My suggestion: write what you want to write, delete the last paragraph, then submit. Don't try to preemptively leave off the last paragraph since it'll probably migrate and still wind up as the last one.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:01PM (#408772)

        You don't understand ethan. The last paragraph isn't some red herring, the first part of his posts are the bait and the last part is the hook. He's a fucktard and he wants other people to buy into his fucktard ways, so he presents arguments that are only minorly fucked up in order to coerce you down the path into fucktardom. The lesson you should be taking from his posts is that there is something fucked up about everything else he says too, its just not quite so blatant. Take the opportunity to strengthen your fuckery detection skills on the bait part of his posts.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:07PM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:07PM (#408775) Homepage Journal

        The female White liberal baby boomers who are advocating for this censorship and affront to American history have herpes from many years of comingling with Black men. Just don't let their husbands and wives know!

        With all due respect: a few times now I've read your comments (I don't look at the nick before reading) then I get to the last paragraph where the whole thing takes a sharp turn for the worst. Seriously it's like a conversation with grandma that starts off slightly odd but by the end everyone is trying to get the train back onto the rails before she's running around calling for the extermination of the subhumans.

        My suggestion: write what you want to write, delete the last paragraph, then submit. Don't try to preemptively leave off the last paragraph since it'll probably migrate and still wind up as the last one.

        You must be new around here. So, Lemme 'splain to you Lucy!

        Ethanol-Fueled (go and take a look at his posting history [soylentnews.org]) is our resident fucking asshole. He posts really repugnant shit, IMHO, just for the pleasure of annoying people like you.

        So when he reads your post, I assume he will chuckle and then whip out his Bowie knife and carve another line onto the inside of his thigh, smile broadly, and say "got another one! Motherfuckas be trippin'!"

        My advice to you is to either ignore him if he annoys/disgusts/triggers you, or give it right back to him. Either way, you'll likely get a pretty similar result.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:41PM (#408782)

          My advice to you is to either ignore him if he annoys/disgusts/triggers you, or give it right back to him. Either way, you'll likely get a pretty similar result.

          I never said he annoyed me - everyone feels sorry for grandma when she goes and spouts off racist shit right? Not because it is some problem locally but because she'll go off and cause problems and embarrass herself elsewhere.

          Bill Burr covers this well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc3HiKQDPCQ [youtube.com]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @03:20PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @03:20PM (#408797)

            Is your grandma hot? Send her to San Diego so she can hook up with EF.

            • (Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Saturday October 01 2016, @03:40PM

              by Knowledge Troll (5948) on Saturday October 01 2016, @03:40PM (#408802) Homepage Journal

              Send her to San Diego so she can hook up with EF.

              Oh he lives in San Diego? His fucked opinion makes even more sense now:

              1) The further south you go generally the more conservative it gets. This applies inside the states on the West Coast of the USA and the West Coast as a whole.
              2) It'd be easy to believe there is an invasion of non-white people in Southern California. Just open eyes and be half paranoid.
              3) He gets to look at street signs that show a father and mother dragging their children and running so fast the kids legs are being drug on the ground while they are crossing the border illegally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_sign#/media/File:W54_Special_%28CA-San_Ysidro%29_-vector.svg [wikipedia.org]

              Sorry guys it is looking more and more like he actually believes this stuff and isn't trolling you; especially if he is drunk all the time. Why does that matter? Fighting him probably just adds another badge of honor. Loving/feeling sorry for him while avoiding arguing the situation is most likely going to result in his becoming uncomfortable with the thread. Community wide this approach probably drives him elsewhere.

              Or I've turned into some kind of pussyfag.

              Is your grandma hot?

              I was going to link to grandma porn but fuck I can't bring myself to do it. I guess pussyfag it is.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:40AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:40AM (#408938)

                The further south you go generally the more conservative it gets. This applies inside the states on the West Coast of the USA and the West Coast as a whole.

                ...and some, I assume, are good people.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:39PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:39PM (#408839) Journal

            Huh? Your grandma is a racist? Odd - the males in my family were often racist assholes, but the women always seemed to be color blind.

            At least I don't have to suffer the shame of having social justice warriors in my family tree. Racist assholes are bad enough.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:36PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:36PM (#408838) Journal

          "My advice to you is to either ignore him if he annoys/disgusts/triggers you"

          YOU SAID THE TRIGGER WORD AND THAT'S MY TRIGGER YOU FUCKTARD!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:03PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:03PM (#408843)

            Somehow I just knew you'd latch right onto that mischaracterization of "trigger" like a dog eating his own shit.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:24PM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:24PM (#408853) Homepage Journal

            "My advice to you is to either ignore him if he annoys/disgusts/triggers you"

            YOU SAID THE TRIGGER WORD AND THAT'S MY TRIGGER YOU FUCKTARD!

            Take it easy Runaway. Perhaps you should go over to the meth house and get a nice booty bump [tweaker.org]. You know that always evens you out. 😉

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday October 01 2016, @08:24PM

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 01 2016, @08:24PM (#408867) Journal

            What have you got against Roy Rodgers?

            And why?

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @02:41PM (#408781)

    May not have been trademarked, but SJW's will always find something that offends them. A muffler shop "No Muff Too Tuff", A plumber "Buttcrack Plumbing". Then there's OTL team names which are NSFW.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday October 01 2016, @04:17PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Saturday October 01 2016, @04:17PM (#408815) Homepage Journal

      May not have been trademarked, but SJW's will always find something that offends them. A muffler shop "No Muff Too Tuff", A plumber "Buttcrack Plumbing". Then there's OTL team names which are NSFW.

      Nope. It's usually the bible-thumpers who take offense. Assholes.

      I recall getting a wonderful T-shirt while skiing at Breckinridge [uncovercolorado.com] which had double black diamonds, a figure of a female with horns, a pitchfork and a tail and the legend, "I licked the Devil's Crotch --Breckinridge."

      Shortly thereafter, I went to a conference in Orlando, FL and since it was my new favorite t-shirt I was walking around wearing it. I got so many dirty looks from the Jesus people! Ridiculous. Not only do they subscribe to a demonstrably false belief system, they're all self-righteous about it. Assholes.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:08PM (#408826)

        That reminds me of a t-shirt I was wearing (we were teens) when I met my girlfriends father, it was a cartoon character of a skinny cat that said "Happiness is a tight pussy". I don't know what I was thinking (yes I did), but he laughed at it instead of kicking my ass out the door.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @06:23PM (#408852)

          In college I had a t-shirt with a huge hairy disembodied vagina on a paisley background, all printed in black and white so it kind of looked like some weird organic/geometric art. The caption said "Read my lips ..." (I can't remember the rest of what it said, something pro-abortion though, right around the time of the famous "read my lips, no new taxes" line). Nobody ever noticed, or if they did, nobody ever said anything.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 01 2016, @05:04PM (#408825)

    Can someone get a trademark on that, or is that still considered offensive?

    Or how about "Buy and Sell Goy Slaves"?