OT: Redskins win (indirectly) in SCOTUS

[QuantumMechanic]

SCOTUS today decided Matal v. Tam (that's "THE SLANTS" case) and invalidated as unconstitutional the anti-disparagement provision of federal trademark law. So the PTO can no longer refuse to register the Redskins' trademarks.

 

[oldrover]

SCOTUS today decided Matal v. Tam (that's "THE SLANTS" case) and invalidated as unconstitutional the anti-disparagement provision of federal trademark law. So the PTO can no longer refuse to register the Redskins' trademarks.

Okay... I tried to read the ruling... but it seemed like there were different groups of judges commenting on half a dozen things each, and no clear cut ruling anywhere I could see.

You obviously get this, so, if it's not too much trouble...

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Yeah, I saw that. Not even a close vote - 8-0. Government cannot deny a trademark based on disparagement grounds.

 

[Froob]

Rather let the consumer decide what's acceptable and unacceptable.

 

[Tony2046]

Okay... I tried to read the ruling... but it seemed like there were different groups of judges commenting on half a dozen things each, and no clear cut ruling anywhere I could see.

You obviously get this, so, if it's not too much trouble...


View attachment 17332

I second this motion.

Seriously I do.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

It's a splintered ruling, but the entirety of Part I, the entirety of Part II, and Part III-A are the opinion of a majority of the court and hence are binding precedent.

Anyhow, here's a good summary by the inestimable Eugene Volokh:
Opinion | The Slants (and the Redskins) win: The government can’t deny full trademark protection to allegedly racially offensive marks

And later today or tomorrow SCOTUSblog will have its (usually excellent) opinion analysis up.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

And from a WaPo news article:

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. delivered the opinion for a largely united court. He said the law could not be saved just because it evenhandedly prohibits disparagement of all groups.

“That is viewpoint discrimination in the sense relevant here: Giving offense is a viewpoint,” Alito wrote.

He added that the disparagement clause in the law “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

All of the participating justices — Neil M. Gorsuch was not on the court when the case was argued — joined that part of Alito’s opinion. Four justices peeled off from parts of the opinion where they say Alito opined on more than what was needed to decide the case.

 

[Deus Irae]

I haven't read the ruling yet, so I can't say that there aren't any poison pills in the language, but the holding of the case is tremendously important for freedom in the U.S, so congrats to the SCOTUS for getting one right.

 

[chasa]

Synders battle to keep the redskins name echos a time when another egotistical White man decided which hill he wanted to die on.

 

[Deus Irae]

Synders battle to keep the redskins name echos a time when another egotistical White man decided which hill he wanted to die on.

No, it doesn't.

 

[fnordcircle]

How did this even reach SCOTUS?

I mean I get not liking the Redskins name or logo, I sure don't, but Free Speech doesn't exist to protect only the things we like to see or read or hear.

 

[Simpelton]

How did this even reach SCOTUS?

I mean I get not liking the Redskins name or logo, I sure don't, but Free Speech doesn't exist to protect only the things we like to see or read or hear.

More to the point, if it did only protect proper and inoffensive speech, there is no free speech in the first place.

By definition nobody objects to unobjectionalbe speech. Free speech is by definition designed to protect objectionable speech.

Free speech exists to protect the sort of things people look at and say "I don't like that, it shouldn't be in the public sphere." In practice that's the ONLY thing the law is there for. The law is designed both to protect political and religious minorities from the mores of a disagreeing majority, and from hyperactive minorities with disproportionate legal power declaring all and sundry "offensive" and sweeping everything they don't like under the rug. Neither are new phenomena. Both are proper applications of the First Amendment protection.

If they'd failed to get it right here they would have effectively taken the First Amendment out back and shot it and left it bleeding out in a ditch. If you don't have the right to free speech when what you say is unpopular, you don't have the right to free speech

 

[PatriotsReign]

Synders battle to keep the redskins name echos a time when another egotistical White man decided which hill he wanted to die on.

No need to reference the race of the Redskins owner. Why did you when it's not relevant to anything?

 

[PatriotsReign]

How did this even reach SCOTUS?

I mean I get not liking the Redskins name or logo, I sure don't, but Free Speech doesn't exist to protect only the things we like to see or read or hear.

Too bad there isn't a team name the Palefaces or the (Tucson) Sunblocks! At this point in humanity, it's just skin tone

 

[Simpelton]

No need to reference the race of the Redskins owner. Why did you when it's not relevant to anything?

Because he thinks that what's obviously a free speech problem is somehow a civil rights problem and is cattily making an oblique and completely irrelevant Strom Thurmond reference to harken back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is quite frankly a direct and massive insult to the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, as if activists in the government bureaucracy trying to force a sports franchise to change its name is an event with anywhere near the gravatas of Dr. King's marches.

If this is our big civil rights issue of our generation, then the National Association for the Advancement of Crooked Protestants can pack up and go home, job complete, well done guys, call ya if we need ya again..

 

[Bonzo]

Synders battle to keep the redskins name echos a time when another egotistical White man decided which hill he wanted to die on.

Goodell?

 

[Deus Irae]

PFT is now reporting on it:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a case involving the name of a band (“The Slants”) that may be offensive to Asian-Americans that the guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment overcomes the government’s supposed ability to invalidate trademark rights on potentially offensive grounds. It doesn’t mean that “The Slants” or “Redskins” are or aren’t offensive; it means that the government can’t deny trademark protection based on arguments that a given term does or could offend.

The government argued in the current case and in the Washington case that the issuance of a trademark transforms the potentially offensive term into “government speech.” Justice Samuel Alito had this to say in explaining that federally-protected trademarks aren’t messages from Uncle Sam: “f trademarks represent government speech, what does the Government have in mind when it advises Americans to ‘make.believe’ (Sony), ‘Think different’ (Apple), ‘Just do it’ (Nike), or ‘Have it your way’ (Burger King)? Was the Government warning about a coming disaster when it registered the mark ‘EndTime Ministries’?

Supreme Court delivers victory for Washington on trademark case

 

[Wheelman]

How disappointing.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

How did this even reach SCOTUS?

I mean I get not liking the Redskins name or logo, I sure don't, but Free Speech doesn't exist to protect only the things we like to see or read or hear.

It reached SCOTUS because the Lanham Act (the core statute of federal trademark law) has a provision that says the PTO shall not register "disparaging" trademarks.

An Asian-American band wanted to call themselves "The Slants" as a way of reclaiming the slur, but the PTO refused to register their trademark. So they sued the PTO, challenging that provision of the Lanham Act, and it eventually bubbled up to SCOTUS.

It reaching SCOTUS was the only way to invalidate the provision (well, other than convincing Congress to repeal it, ha ha.)

 

[TB_Helmet]

I look forward to seeing how quickly this thread deteriorates.