Support NeoGAF

[Vice]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that even trademarks considered to be derogatory deserve First Amendment protection.

The decision was a victory for an Asian American dance rock band dubbed The Slants -- and, in all likelihood, for the Washington Redskins, whose trademarks were cancelled in 2014 following complaints from Native Americans.

"It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a unanimous court. He rejected the government's argument that protected trademarks become a form of government, rather than private, speech.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ensive-trademarks-form-free-speech/100618478/

 

[Got]

not surprising. redskins are still a garbage franchise run by a garbage owner

 

[Lord Frieza]

This is a disappointing thing, but pretty in line with previous SC rulings on hate speech

 

[benicillin]

The ruling makes sense, but a lot of people who still don't understand free speech are going to take the wrong message from it.

 

[Gnome Scat]

Sensible ruling, it's up to the people to overcome this sort of thing, not the law.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

I completely understand the issues with Redskins but what is the problem with the first if they themselves are Asian?

 

[SliceSabre]

I mean considering our First Amendment yea this judgment was entirely expected and I can't say I disagree with it.

 

[commish]

From a legal/Constitution perspective, this is honestly the result I would hope for. I don't think it's the USPTO's position to deny these types of marks.

From a decency/common sense perspective, I would hope that no one would actually use these names in commerce. And if they do, I would hope that our society would let them know that offensive names have no place.

 

[wesleyshark]

Sensible ruling, it's up to the people to overcome this sort of thing, not the law.

Agreed

 

[Skellig Gra]

From a legal perspective its hard to see them rule any other way.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I understand the Redskins but what is the problem with the first if they themselves are Asian?

An offensive name is categorized as such regardless of who is using it

Like in a situation where it's OK to strike down the trademark for the Redskins it wouldn't matter if the team was owned by Native Americans

 

[spootime]

Good decision by the sc

 

[Squirrel Killer]

From a decency/common sense perspective, I would hope that no one would actually use these names in commerce. And if they do, I would hope that our society would let them know that offensive names have no place.

Personally, I've tried to strike Washington's NFL team's nickname from my usage, but to be honest, that's more of a Dallas Cowboys' fan FU to the team than a principled fight against hate speech.

This is a disappointing thing, but pretty in line with previous SC rulings on hate speech

Not just in line with precedent, but also a unanimous 8-0 ruling.

 

[timetokill]

Yeah there's really no other way to rule on this

Good ruling

 

[jon bones]

fair decision by the courts

 

[CadetMahoney]

What would happen is someone imports merchandise to UK/Germany? Or if they want to tour in Europe?

 

[WinFonda]

i agree with the ruling

we can and must police offensive speech together as responsible citizens, without government censorship

 

[WaffleTaco]

I disagree with their ruling. I remember earlier this year in my Constitutional Law class having a discussion about this. I think things have changed. A person using offensive language used to be tarred and feathered by the public so they would either apologize and change their ways or be ostracized by the public. However, with the election of Trump and his remarks either not hurting him or in some cases increasing his approval...I think censorship should be taking place against offensive speech, at least temporarily.

 

[timetokill]

I disagree with their ruling. I remember earlier this year in my Constitutional Law class having a discussion about this. I think things have changed. A person using offensive language used to be tarred and feathered by the public so they would either apologize and change their ways or be ostracized by the public. However, with the election of Trump and his remarks either not hurting him or in some cases increasing his approval...I think censorship should be taking place against offensive speech, at least temporarily.

Think for a second about who would get to enforce such laws and therefore decide what is "offensive" and then pls recant

 

[Slayven]

People should be allowed to make terrible business decisions

 

[chekhonte]

You should be thankful because it easily could be applied to something you think should be allowed.

 

[WaffleTaco]

Think for a second about who would get to enforce such laws and therefore decide what is "offensive" and then pls recant

Again this was months ago, and I had a more thought out version available. I belive also that there countries in Europe that have laws like this and they seem to work fine. However, I agree with your sentiments that most likely those who would decide what would be offensive at this point in time would be the same people who are offended by minorities having rights.

 

[To Far Away Times]

The correct decision.

 

[QuantumBro]

Think for a second about who would get to enforce such laws and therefore decide what is "offensive" and then pls recant

You don't think the Trump administration would tar and feather racists if they had the power to?

 

[Inuhanyou]

Its a reasonable ruling.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Sensible ruling, it's up to the people to overcome this sort of thing, not the law.

... In other words, not happening

 

[TS-08]

I disagree with their ruling. I remember earlier this year in my Constitutional Law class having a discussion about this. I think things have changed. A person using offensive language used to be tarred and feathered by the public so they would either apologize and change their ways or be ostracized by the public. However, with the election of Trump and his remarks either not hurting him or in some cases increasing his approval...I think censorship should be taking place against offensive speech, at least temporarily.

Trump's election made you think we need government censorship of offensive speech so your solution is to provide temporary censorship power to the government led by Trump and the GOP?

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't think a government granted monopoly is a form of speech. To the extent that the name is an act of speech, then there must clearly be a marketplace on speech; trademarks interfere with this.

 

[Slayven]

Hate speech shouldn't be censored. People just need to start acknowledging as actual hate speech. Instead of entertaining it. Sadly since hate speech rarely effects 70% of the country you won't see this happen

 

[yanipheonu]

The problem always seemed like it was just really problematic to place a blanket law on.

 

[knkng]

I'm not gonna lie, I think that's a pretty cool sounding band name. I don't think I would have really made the connection, even if I saw that they were Asian. :/

Regardless, it's their choice to call themselves that, just as it's their choice to accept any potential negative press and blowback associated with the name.

 

[Kinyou]

Hard to tell an Asian American band that they aren't allowed to call themselves that. The Washington football team happens to profit of it

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

I get the ruling.

As a fan of the team though, one thing I can do is not use the term "Redskins", so that's what I've been trying to do. "Washington" is perfectly sufficient.

 

[TS-08]

I don't think a government granted monopoly is a form of speech. To the extent that the name is an act of speech, then there must clearly be a marketplace on speech; trademarks interfere with this.

Have you read the opinion? They squarely address this issue. Although your "marketplace" argument isn't really something I understand to have any legal significance with respect to a first amendment free speech analysis, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

This is when the First Amendment argument applies (not, say, banning people from Twitter or not letting them giving speeches in universities). I agree with the ruling.

 

[TS-08]

This is when the First Amendment argument applies (not, say, banning people from Twitter or not letting them giving speeches in universities). I agree with the ruling.

Allowing/not allowing speeches in public universities does implicate the first amendment though.

 

[Jinkies]

I don't understand why "Redskins" is problematic? Don't Native Americans use that term sometimes, such as in the case of NA sports teams, and doesn't that show quantitatively that simply alluding to race cannot be considered bigotry?

 

[CazTGG]

I disagree with their ruling. I remember earlier this year in my Constitutional Law class having a discussion about this. I think things have changed. A person using offensive language used to be tarred and feathered by the public so they would either apologize and change their ways or be ostracized by the public. However, with the election of Drumpf and his remarks either not hurting him or in some cases increasing his approval...I think censorship should be taking place against offensive speech, at least temporarily.

The problem with this thought process is that, legally speaking, it's impossible to enforce censorship in the United States or any first-world country for that matter. In Canada, we had a man named Ernst Zundel handing out flyers denying that the Holocaust happened who was charged for literal fake news...and ended up winning their court case in the Supreme Court of Canada (albeit a very divided court) on the basis that the laws he was breaking were unconstitutional under the Charter and that the reasonable limits clause could not be applied. I will say i'm disappointed by the "hate speech should be defended" posts i've seen in this thread. I have no tolerance for the intolerant, of those that cause minority group to be silenced or attempt to silence through through intimidation or harassment in any capacity, to say nothing of the cretinous cultural appropriation that is the Washington NFL team, because that's what hate speech constitutes: It is not free speech, rather it is the freedom to make vile and hateful statements without suffering any consequences, be it legally or socially,as a result.

I don't understand why "Redskins" is problematic? Don't Native Americans use that term sometimes, such as in the case of NA sports teams, and doesn't that show quantitatively that simply alluding to race cannot be considered bigotry?

Here you go!

 

[NimbusD]

of course. if money is speech, then why wouldnt a government granted monopoly be speech?

 

[timetokill]

I don't understand why "Redskins" is problematic? Don't Native Americans use that term sometimes, such as in the case of NA sports teams, and doesn't that show quantitatively that simply alluding to race cannot be considered bigotry?

Uh, by this logic you could name a team the n-words

 

[Jinkies]

Here you go!

That makes sense internally, but seems disconnected from reality. No one uses "redskin" conversationally or pejoratively, at least not en masse. I also have no problem with "Irishman" or "Chinaman," other than the fact that they are engendered terms.

Uh, by this logic you could name a team the n-words

Difference being is that this isn't a hate word like that.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Allowing/not allowing speeches in public universities does implicate the first amendment though.

No? Universities are not obligated to invite anyone to speak on their campuses.

 

[perfectchaos007]

If you think a business has an offensive trademark, then don't support that business. Thats the right way to go about it

 

[timetokill]

That makes sense internally, but seems disconnected from reality. No one uses "redskin" conversationally or pejoratively, at least not en masse. I also have no problem with "Irishman" or "Chinaman," other than the fact that they are engendered terms.

Difference being is that this isn't a hate word like that.

I don't think "Nashville Negroes" would go over any better honestly, and neither would "San Francisco Orientals"

 

[TS-08]

No? Universities are not obligated to invite anyone to speak on their campuses.

Public universities aren't obliged to "invite" anyone but they may be obliged to allow someone to speak if their only objection to the speech is based on the speaker's content or view-point. You can research universities and "limited or designated public forums" if you don't believe me.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Have you read the opinion? They squarely address this issue. Although your "marketplace" argument isn't really something I understand to have any legal significance with respect to a first amendment free speech analysis, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

I am truly indifferent to whatever legal doctrines are at play here. I generally do not believe that speech in the abstract requires the force of government granted monopoly. To the extent that speech has any value, it is because there can be speech and counter-speech; if naming something is an act of speech, then getting the sole ability to suppress others from making that speech seems abusive to me.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

No? Universities are not obligated to invite anyone to speak on their campuses.

No, but often times these speakers are invited by student groups, who public universities have an obligation to treat as equals regardless of the content of their speech, assuming they are not breaking enforceable university rules ("speech codes" having been ruled largely unenforceable by courts in the past).

 

[Trigonometrize.]

I feel like regardless on your opinions on hate speech, you have to agree with the ruling. The USPTO cannot be the sole/most powerful governmental arbitrator on what constitutes something as offensive and doesn't deserve the same legal protections as everything else. That's just silly.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I am truly indifferent to whatever legal doctrines are at play here. I generally do not believe that speech in the abstract requires the force of government granted monopoly. To the extent that speech has any value, it is because there can be speech and counter-speech; if naming something is an act of speech, then getting the sole ability to suppress others from making that speech seems abusive to me.

If the government grants trademarks at all, though, then how can one legally justify those trademarks not being adjudicated according to to the highest and final authority on the government's responsibilities toward speech and expression? If one is to say that a name and/or logo are acts of speech, and that the government has a meaningful interest in protecting people's right to monetize and profit from these acts of speech in order to encourage creativity and innovation, at what point does the government gain the right to impose additional restrictions on what kinds of expression are and are not allowed to be trademarked?

 

[kunonabi]

Hard to tell an Asian American band that they aren't allowed to call themselves that. The Washington football team happens to profit of it

So do American Indian museums that sell merchandise using the term.