Discussion: Supreme Court Rules Law On Offensive Trademarks Is Unconstitutional

Congrats, Mister Snyder.

4 Likes

Iā€™m actually pleased with this decision. Determination of what constituted offensive language came down to the opinions of a handful of people in that office rushing through hundreds of requests, and enforcement was arbitrary. In this case, the officials making the decision were unable to acknowledge that the term ā€˜slantā€™ was being used in an ironic way by musicians intending to reclaim it. Notorious RBG seemed particularly unimpressed by the governmentā€™s reasoning during oral arguments.

13 Likes

Itā€™s the right ruling. Let the douchebags announce themselves as douchebags so we know who to label douchebags and can proceed to destroy them for it.

13 Likes

Really, a no-brainer.

Theyā€™ll have to get the name changed the old-fashioned way: Shame.

5 Likes

The decision was unanimous, but the justices were divided on the reasoning.

10 Likes

Principal has won out over decency.

1 Like

Iā€™m looking forward to the new sex shop named ā€œFUCKā€.

12 Likes

Ironically, ā€œdouchbagsā€ is now registerable as a trademark by anyone not actually in the douche business

12 Likes

Oddly enough, Iā€™m now looking forward to that too.

9 Likes

Cue the next Brit Boy Band, the "Wanking Limey Bastards"Ā©ā„¢

12 Likes

Too late. Iā€™m pretty sure I saw them perform in Bournemouth back in the '70s.

8 Likes

Corporate or personal piggishness is a constitutional right, even though its morally wrong.

This one gets an asterisk.

3 Likes

So does this mean the DMV must approve my ā€œFUKTRMPā€ license plate?

12 Likes

So does this mean that someone can register N*gger and start sending out cease&desist orders?

3 Likes

So does this mean that someone can register N*gger and start sending out cease&desist orders?

Iā€™m going to say itā€™s been ā€œgenericizedā€ by years of common use and itā€™s a trademark that canā€™t be enforced.

Actually, that ought to be a reason for denying ā€œRedskinsā€ trademark protection, right?

3 Likes

I am too, since Iā€™m kind of a free-speech hawk, if that makes senseā€”Iā€™d like to see suppression and punishment of hateful speech happen outside the government. But itā€™s funny how glad and relieved you can feel these days just to see an honest, non-stupid controversy about a serious question that politics and other social actors have to address. How do we handle speech that was accepted once and now is widely seen as offensive? How do we react to groupsā€”rappers, gays, etc.ā€”claiming back offensive terms? Itā€™s actually kind of important to talk about, so it stands out amid the toxic trivia, the lies and propaganda and simple nonsense thatā€™s so much taken over.

6 Likes

I have to say: itā€™s so good to wake up in the morning with the blessed assurance that we are a civil society. And what I mean by civil is that I am reasonably sure that it is unlikely that any in my immediate family will be shot within the next 24 hours.

4 Likes

ā€œThe Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of a law that bans offensive trademarksā€ what part did they not strike down?

2 Likes

Know what you mean. I look out my office window and see a bit of small-town America. People ride bikes and walk dogs. They cut their lawns and put out the trash. Itā€™s stable, the same as it was in the Obama years. I think thatā€™s one reason Trump was electedā€”there were so many people whoā€™ve lived such stable lives theyā€™ve never realized how quickly it could fall apart, and how horrific it could become.

7 Likes