Page 1 of 1

FUCT

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:42 am
by Leisher

FUCT

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:11 am
by TheCatt
FUCT wins 6-3
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may not deny registration to trademarks it deems “immoral or scandalous,” finding that the Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment when it applied such criteria to brand names.

“The most fundamental principle of free speech law is that the government can’t penalize or disfavor or discriminate against expression based on the ideas or viewpoints it conveys,” Justice Elena Kagan said, summarizing the court’s opinion from the bench. “The First Amendment does not allow the government to penalize views just because many people, whether rightly or wrongly, see them as offensive.”

All nine justices agreed that the government had no business deciding what images or words were immoral and thus excluded from the benefits of trademark registration. But three said the ban on scandalous trademarks could serve a legitimate purpose in withholding legal protection from vulgarity and profanity.

FUCT

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:34 pm
by Vince
Which 3?

FUCT

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:25 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote: Which 3?
You know, that's what I wanted from the article as well, but nothing.

From another article.
Kagan was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch in full. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor concurred in part and dissented in part.
But it sounds like they pretty much all agreed on the basic premise.

FUCT

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:53 pm
by Vince
What I read (especially with the withholding of the 3) was, "the government has no business policing what's immoral according to Christians and religious people, but we kind of want to keep that door open for government to regulate hate speech in the future".

FUCT

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:55 pm
by TheCatt
Vince wrote: What I read (especially with the withholding of the 3) was, "the government has no business policing what's immoral according to Christians and religious people, but we kind of want to keep that door open for government to regulate hate speech in the future".
Congress certainly has some right to regulate speech, but that line's always going to be fuzzy.

FUCT

Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:11 pm
by Vince
TheCatt wrote: Congress certainly has some right to regulate speech, but that line's always going to be fuzzy.
It's always going to be fuzzy because they don't want to preemptively give up any power.