- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Redskins Win... banning offensive Trademark names is unconstitutional according to SCOTUS
Posted on 6/19/17 at 1:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/19/17 at 1:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's a tool of fascism. why are you promoting fascism?
You are talking to the person who claimed protesters had the right to be heard, and trying to avoid hearing them was a violation of their constitutional rights.
To be clear - not silencing the protesters, literally just not wanting to hear them was the violation.
This was in regards to protestors blocking students access to their classes in one of those institutions of indoctur... i mean higher learning in California.
0
Posted on 6/19/17 at 1:47 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:less obvious violation of the US Constitution than "gun control" laws.
How this provision in the Lanham Act remained for so long despite clearly breaching Amendment 1 makes literally zero sense
Posted on 6/19/17 at 2:00 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
and frick you
Y tu madre tambien, pendej--
You know what? I can't sustain it. My true hate is reserved for the eagles
Posted on 6/19/17 at 2:19 pm to Jack Ruby
They should probably change it, but sure as frick not because the law forces them to. Good decision.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 2:37 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
The fact that the US patent office did this is even more disturbing. Not to get too political, but the previous administration corrupted so many federal agencies by using them as political arms to enforce ideology. This clearly unconstitutianl case is just but one example.
The law was passed in 1946.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 2:43 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Good - maybe this will extend to license plates...because the government issues them and declares them government speech and prohibits content.
Perhaps...
quote:
2.
The disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Contrary to the Government’s contention, trademarks are private, not government speech. Because the “Free Speech Clause . . . does not regulate government speech,” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 467, the government is not required to maintain viewpoint neutrality on its own speech. This Court exercises great caution in extending its government-speech precedents, for if private speech could be passed off as government speech by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints.
Posted on 6/19/17 at 3:07 pm to slackster
Good ruling. Government can not be in the business of regulating speech as a rule.
The idea of banning speech because it offends removes the core of the first amendment because it inevitably can only be applied to the speech of minorities - because majority speech representing majority opinions will not be deemed offensive to anyone other than a minority group. Conversely minority positions which contradict conventional norms and opinions will inevitably be portrayed as offensive.
The second you regulate speech for being offensive you gut the first amendment and rob your democracy of open dialogue that allows for democratic debate.
The idea of banning speech because it offends removes the core of the first amendment because it inevitably can only be applied to the speech of minorities - because majority speech representing majority opinions will not be deemed offensive to anyone other than a minority group. Conversely minority positions which contradict conventional norms and opinions will inevitably be portrayed as offensive.
The second you regulate speech for being offensive you gut the first amendment and rob your democracy of open dialogue that allows for democratic debate.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News