Slants is taken? Can we drop the N and spell it with a U?
Posted on 12/22/2015 3:51:46 PM PST by BenLurkin
The 110-page set of opinions by the full Federal Circuit Court of Appeals said parts of a 1946 law barring the Patent and Trademark Office from registering "disparaging" names are unconstitutional because they intrude on the private expression of free speech.
"Many of the (trademarks) rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities," the court wrote. "But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech. The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks."
That stance, reached in a 10-2 vote, marks a milestone after several rounds of legal battles by the band's bassist and founder, Simon Tam
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
This is discussable?
Finally some sanity. The government has gone too far in trying to control every word. There are even thought crimes that draw hefty prison terms.
LOL!
Uncle Kracker is a white guy also. Offensive I’m sure!
“Sounds like a slippery slope to me.”
I could find pictures, but the “good” ones would get me banned.
Back to thread topic, I wonder if Donald Trump could say "Shlonging Slants" 3 times quickly....
This is definitely a slippery Slope.
Lingo changes -- back then, the soul brother jarheads were "Splibs" (among both white and black juggies)..
I hate you both.
You’re welcome.
The writer is biased.
Maybe they’ll cover Rod Stewart’s “Every Picture Tells a Story”
I moved right out east yeah!
On the Peking ferry I was feeling merry
sailing on my way back here
I fell in love with a slit eyed lady
by the light of an eastern moon
Shangai Lil never used the pill
She claimed that it just ain’t natural
She took me up on deck and bit my neck
Oh people I was glad I found her
Oh yeah I was glad I found her
I had to (well, maybe I didn’t HAVE to) search on Zipperhead. Korean war origin, popular in Vietnam. One possible origin was driving over their dead bodies with tire tracks, with the tracks looking like zippers. (I don’t know about that one.)
Other was machine-gun fire rising up their heads. Other that seems more scientific (not sure if true), but said the mongloid skull structure caused their heads to split open when hit with rifle fire.
The court is wrong. Trademarks, Patents, Copyrights, and other ip protections are not about free speech.
IP law is based on the consent of the governed voluntarily relinquishing rights to others by rewarding innovation with the ability to profit financially and thus contributing to the advancement and progress of arts and sciences.
Free speech has NOTHING to do with granting limited monopolies on specific speech. In fact, it is the opposite. It is the limitation of speech and the press. For example, only the copyright owner can authorize the distribution of movies on digital disks or online streaming. I am not FREE to disseminate them. And this is a limitation on my free speech, but a reasonable and legal one.
The First Amendment trumps Political Correctness. Congratulations to the Slants, the Redskins, and all freedom-loving Americans.
All federal, State, and local government action is subject to the First Amendment. A group's name is a way it expresses what is its identity. To punish that group (in this case by denying trademark protection) for the content of that expression definitely violates the right to free speech.
No it does not. They are mutually exclusive. The courts have been wrong for a long time on this.
The purpose of free speech is entirely different from the right to be able to earn money from speech, ideas, inventions, or any other similar intellectual property right via a government created monopoly.
Granting trademark status denies MY ability to use this particular speech because now it infringes on the trademark holder’s “rights”. But this right is not a natural right like free speech is.
If the court had disallowed this trademark the band could still have called themselves the same name. No one would arrest them. No one would fine them. And any other band could use the same name which would be allowing MORE free speech than this ruling did.
Intellectual property LIMITS the rights of those who do not own the property.
Before this ruling anyone could form a band and call themselves this. Now only one band can do so legally within the jurisdiction the trademark is registered. This may further paid speech for one tiny group, but it limits free speech for the rest of us.
The court ruled incorrectly.
“Intellectual property LIMITS the rights of those who do not own the property.”
You’re a lunatic.
L
Come back when you have something intellectually honest to add.
Name calling is what liberals and those intellectually unable to make an argument resort to.
Or perhaps reading more than a one-liner made you dizzy because it requires waking from a drunken stupor long enough to activate a brain cell.
Sleep off your drunken stupor and feel free to join in when your cognitive abilities return.
So you believe the First Amendment prohibits trademarks? How about patents and copyrights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.