SCOTUS: Free speech means free speech!

There is no exception for offensive speech. Period. Unanimous.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal trademark law banning offensive names is unconstitutional, siding with a rock band whose name had been deemed racially disparaging by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In an 8-0 ruling, the court determined the law’s so-called “disparagement clause” violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

The case centered on Oregon-based, Asian-American band The Slants, which was denied a trademark because its name was considered offensive. The band countered that the 70-year-old law at issue violates free-speech rights — and Justice Samuel Alito, in the court’s opinion, agreed.

That should reverse the ridiculous ruling from the Patent and Trademark Office regarding the Washington Redskins.

More here.

Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to SCOTUS: Free speech means free speech!

  1. C. L. says:

    So, no matter how badly the SJWs want to equate yelling “Trump” on a crowded college campus to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, it ain’t gonna happen. Yay! 8 – 0? I should not be surprised that it was unanimous, but I am. Pleasantly.

  2. BrunDawg says:

    Will it get LeRoy Brown off the hook? What’s it do for texting a manslaughter?

    • R.D. Walker says:

      The missus and I just had a spirited debate about texting a manslaughter. She didn’t agree with my ‘free speech’ argument and wants to see the little demon texter convicted and locked up for life. 🙂

      • BrunDawg says:

        I have one foot firmly in each camp. I think our justice system could find some way of jailing her and not calling it manslaughter. The assisted suicide law in MA should apply to terminally ill (yea, life is a terminally ill condition).
        It comes down to whether it is better to convict evil for something they didn’t do or let evil walk. I’m glad I don’t have to decide.

  3. notamobster says:

    My wife and I had that same conversation, RD…

  4. Rich says:

    I was listening to Glenn Beck. And he was saying that the kid initially got in the car with the hose from the exhaust running into the car. After a bit he got scared, left the car, went into fresh air … and called his GF. She basically bitched him out, asking what the heck he was doing out of the car. So, he goes back, and she remains on the phone with him listening to him die.

    Even with those awful, awful facts (assuming they are correct), by logic and on principle I do not see her as responsible for killing him. Ultimately he made that decision. But I dearly wish that there is some other law on the books that would fit what she did short of some form of murder/manslaughter.

  5. DocO says:

    I’m not a big fan of Civil Law Suits, but this seems an appropriate way to punish this girl without compromising freedom of speech guarantees.

    I think the “Duty to Rescue” is very applicable here.