Offensive Trademarks Must Be Allowed, Rules Supreme Court (arstechnica.com) 253
In a ruling that could have broad impact on how the First Amendment is applied in other trademark cases in future, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a federal prohibition on disparaging trademarks as a constitutional violation in a ruling involving a band called The Slants. From a report: The opinion in Matal v. Tam means that Simon Tam, lead singer of an Asian-American rock band called "The Slants," will be able to trademark the name of his band. It's also relevant for a high-profile case involving the Washington Redskins, who were involved in litigation and at risk of being stripped of their trademark. The court unanimously held that a law on the books holding that a trademark can't "disparage... or bring... into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead," violates the First Amendment. Tam headed to federal court years ago after he was unable to obtain a trademark. In 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Tam's favor, finding that the so-called "disparagement clause" of trademark law was unconstitutional.
Are license plates next? (Score:3)
I've wanted I(heart)269 on my car since California added their little set of additional characters
Re: (Score:2)
I've wanted I(heart)269 on my car since California added their little set of additional characters
Emoji license plate characters? Is there a finger?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Off the top of my head, there are a heart, a hand, and a (filled) pentagram. Ah yes, and a plus sign. That one is probably the least used. They only appear on California "kids" plates, which have flowers across the bottom of the character field. California also has California Agriculture plates with a crappy picture of a field, Environmental plates which are just white, Memorial plates which are all patriotic n' shit, Arts Council plates with some palm trees, California 1960s Legacy plates in black and yell
Re: (Score:2)
A lady had her tribute to tofu repealed after years of use: ILUVTOFU
Re: (Score:2)
I see you're in the 'happy drunk' phase of the day, amirite?
No, you are as incorrect as you are cowardly.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that's my gig. He handles the night shift.
Which explains our hate for each other. Were we both on the same drinking schedule this might be different.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure smoking gun collected the 'no' list of ego plates, a good decade ago. People with sticks in uncomfortable places have surely made the list grow a little since, but still, done.
Wait, they got one right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
(Yes, I chose that reference on purpose, specifically to illustrate the point. The phrase dates to the 1500's and is exactly representative of the speech SJW's would ban simply because they take offense when none is intended
Re:Wait, they got one right? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Slants are Asian Americans. They're aware of the current disparaging connotation and are used it to try to overcome it.
Planet Money had a great podcast episode on this [npr.org]. One of the biggest parts for the Slants was when RBG said "hey, what if they want to take this word back"
Re:Wait, they got one right? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is also the effective way to "take a word back". You not only take it back, you have to wear it proudly and eliminate the negative connotations. It's like when people started being proud about the geek/nerd label.
"Hey nerd, what's up!" "Happily being a nerd! You?"
You can't do that if you still police it as offensive though. "Hey Nerd!" "How dare you call me that! Only nerds can call other nerds a nerd!" That isn't taking it back, that's reinforcing the negative power of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
The government acknowledged the band was using it in a positive way. They maintained, though, that some Asians would find it offensive anyway.
The SC rejected all such reasons as being relevant. Indeed, it is the offensive things that are most in need of First Amendment protection.
This case is one of several in recent years rejecting "It is a special program created by Congress to bring financial benefits, and therefore Congress may restrict speech in it as a requirement for citizens to take advantage."
The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And no charges were laid, the police investigated and found nothing worthwhile. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-13218522 [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Same here.
Seemingly for ONCE in the last 30-40 years (I'm 50) I see the forces of "it's not the job of the government to protect your hurt feelings" have won one.
My goodness that's refreshing.
Re: (Score:2)
In these days of extreme political correctness/social justice warrior activism, I am surprised it wasn't a 5/4 or 6/3 split.
So it's not the government oppressing you then which means you're basically complaining about people using their free speech wrong. I guess it's your right as an American protected under the first amendment to have a complete irony bypass.
see how bad it's getting.
Oh look, a Daily Fail link.
A good example of bad laws. (Score:2, Insightful)
Realistically, the anti-disparagement law only lasted this long because Obama's administration wanted it to so they could use it against the Redskins. I don't think there are too many people who care about an Asian-American rock group naming themselves "The Slants" - after all, there's really nothing inherently disparaging about the word "slant" unless you're using it as part of a slur ("slant-eyed").
This is really a case of the government trying to screw over the little guy because of a broader policy agen
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, if it gets to the point where you're not allowed to be disparaging toward yourself - something has gone too far. This trademark wouldn't even be disparaging to non-members of the band, if it were disparaging at all.
Re:A good example of bad laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are correct. If there is a political agenda, the judges normally vote along party line. If there are no politics involved, the courts will default towards the letter of the law.
People have been redefining acceptable free speech for so many political views, they don't think about the legal impacts. As if only politically correct acceptable speech should be allowed, that's not how free speech works.
Re:A good example of bad laws. (Score:5, Informative)
Realistically, the anti-disparagement law only lasted this long because Obama's administration wanted it to so they could use it against the Redskins.
The anti-disparagement clause is part of 15 USC 1052(a), and was in the first version of the Lanham Act, passed in 1946, and signed by Truman. It has remained the same over the past 71 years, and Congress, not the President, has the power to change it or keep it.
Trying to make this about Obama is just stupid, particularly when the first case about this - Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo [wikipedia.org] - was decided in 2005 during Bush Jr.'s presidency. And it's even stupider, because that case stemmed from a petition to cancel the Redskins' trademark in 1992, during Clinton's first term. This has been an active dispute for 25 years.
Re:A good example of bad laws. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually...while what you said is accurate, you left out a really important and pertinent point. The executive can direct the federal agencies how to enforce the various laws which are used as the basis for administrative rules that dictate how those agencies function. While the case was about The Slants, the more publicized issue was with the Redskins. For that, the last sentence of the AP article on this ruling is insightful:
"The trademark office for years had raised no concerns about the Redskins, agreeing to register the name in 1967, 1974, 1978 and 1990. But the office canceled the registrations in 2014 after finding the name disparaged Native Americans."
That sudden reversal was all about a directive coming from the White House. No new law or rule...just the president telling a federal agency how to enforce the rules via laws. Same thing happened in the opposite direction with DOMA. So, yes, this was entirely about Obama and his directives.
Re: (Score:2)
... in 1992, during Clinton's first term.
Clinton wasn't president in 1992.
Re: (Score:2)
This is really a case of the government trying to screw over the little guy because of a broader policy agenda (namely forcing the Redskins to change their name).
. . . speaking of screwing over the little guy, "The Slits" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] never had this problem.
Once again, it's one rule for "The Slits" and another rule for "The Slants" . . .
Re: (Score:2)
So, maybe same rule.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this?
https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
Extra information (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day... NPR happens to get a worm now and then...
Actually, they do quite well with their "facts" the problem they have is their obviously liberal bias in their editorial decisions like "what stories we cover" "what facts they choose to use" "what conclusions are we drawing". However, they are worlds better than MSNBC and usually CNN so I do actually listen to them fairly regularly to see what the other side is actually thinking.... (This coming from what most would cal
Re:Extra information (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously I prefer news organizations that attempt to be careful with the facts, which is why I don't watch MSMBC except their comedy shows hosted by Maddow.... All of them have their issues, so if you take what they say with the necessary amounts of salt and throw out all the editorial bias shows the news they report is generally all about the same. Consumer be wary, they are in business to sell advertising and don't make a penny reporting the news...
Re: (Score:3)
I generally apply 3 standards to what I take as news....
1. Ignore those who are NOT journalists when it comes to news (I listen to Rush, but he's NOT a reporter so I don't get my "news" from him) . This rules out things like facebook, comedy shows, twitter and the like. It also rules out most of the pontificating done on the various cable news outlets.
2. Take any "news" story backed by anonymous sources as nothing more than rumor. It *might* be news, but likely it's not.
3. Research original sources whe
Re:Extra information (Score:4, Interesting)
"Ignore those who are NOT journalists when it comes to news (I listen to Rush, but he's NOT a reporter so I don't get my "news" from him)"
..but you're not ignoring Rush are you. You can CLAIM you don't get news from him, but if you're listening to him then that's kind of an oxymoron because you take the information he gives you and that alters the lens through which you interpret the news you consume. (and that's his job) You try to come off as objective when it's blindingly apparent that you are not.
I will agree with you however that, especially in this day and age it's about sources sources sources!!! Listen to one side and listen to the other. Sometimes the people you hate can offer fair points which I will add has affected me to a positive degree and decrease (but not eliminated) my own bias.
I find Fox and MSNBC to be opposite sides of the same coin. Coming from someone with a liberal bias I can easily see where they try to lead their viewers.
I too encourage people to not be lazy and watch testimony and read bills and listen to both sides and above all always follow the money!!!! Because money seems to be the biggest culprit these days to destroying the values we are supposed to hold dear.
Again: You Cannot Give Offense (Score:3)
You can only take it.
If enough people are outraged by the Redskins or the Slants, their respective businesses will suffer and they will make a financially informed decision to make a change. If -- as we all know in our hearts -- only a very few loud, whiny SJWs even gave these names a second thought, their respective businesses will continue as normal. Good Job, SCOTUS.
Re:Again: You Cannot Give Offense (Score:4, Informative)
If enough people are outraged by the Redskins...
In a conversation that included an actual Native American, she asserted that only "Professional Indians" (her term, spoken with rolling of the eyes) cared. At all.
Re: (Score:2)
In a conversation that included an actual Native American, she asserted that only "Professional Indians" (her term, spoken with rolling of the eyes) cared. At all
So? With any sufficiently large group you can find a member of that group who will say just about anything. Do you have any particular reason to believe she was a representative sample?
Re: (Score:3)
This has been polled for at least a decade and the numbers never change much. Even during the height of the lawsuit over trademark I believe the highest they could ever get for Natives being offended by the name is 9%. 80% said they wouldn't even be offended if they were personally called Redskin by a non-native. It's just not considered a pejorative by most Natives but that's not good for the professional offence takers so they keep trying to make it something every few years.
Like most of these campaign
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Both of them?
The point is, and it seems it has to be said again so some people catch that, if a sizable amount of people actually gave half a fuck about the team's name and were disgusted by it, the team's name would be changed faster than you can assemble a protest. NFL teams are a business. If it would sell to be called the pink pussies, they'd run up on the field in fabulously looking frilly dresses.
Oh please ban offensive names... (Score:5, Interesting)
As soon as you do ban them, I'm going to protest that the supreme court has an offensive name (ok, not a trademark but still a name) because their assumption that they are supreme is very offensive to me.
Re:Oh please ban offensive names... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I so wish I could mod up responses to my own comments at times ;p
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have multiple Slashdot UIDs? Newbie.
Re: (Score:2)
With sour cream and faux-tomato.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as you do ban them, I'm going to protest that the supreme court has an offensive name (ok, not a trademark but still a name) because their assumption that they are supreme is very offensive to me.
That's similar to my practice of dealing with people that think they have a "right" to not be offended. I tell them that I'm offended by people that are offended by (whatever they're complaining about), so if they're correct that it's a fundamental right, they must stop being offended immediately because they're infringing on my rights. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Well then you should not be offended, because it isn't.
Legally, "hate speech" doeasn't exist (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a legal fiction that SJW types and their fellow-travelers like to promulgate that the First Amendment doesn't cover "hate speech." This decision says that argument is false [battleswarmblog.com]:
The justices further noted that "speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions."
Free speech cannot be prohibited, or even restricted, just because SJW types find it "offensive."
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech cannot be prohibited,
Damn. I was counting on it the next time my kids complain about having to eat spinach.
Re:Legally, "hate speech" doeasn't exist (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a legal fiction that SJW types and their fellow-travelers like to promulgate that the First Amendment doesn't cover "hate speech."
Generic catch-all for people I hate do something I don't like even if most of them actually don't.
Yay death to the strawman!
Free speech cannot be prohibited, or even restricted
ITYM "should not". Clearly free speech can be prohibited as many people have done so in the past.
What about a German band named... (Score:2)
The Krauts.
I wonder if that would've also been blocked by the USPTO and had to go to litigation to resolve.
What about misleading trademarks? (Score:2)
(Well, at least so far desi does not have any pejorative connotations, lets see how long it remains so...)
Re: (Score:3)
Is that fair? Of course not. It should have been Lu-Desi, or "ludes" for short. Everyone knows she was a much better actor than he was, and that's even if you remember t
Good news! (Score:2)
This makes sense to me (Score:2)
If the government is going to issue trademarks, they have to issue them in a content-neutral way. Otherwise, the government is placed in the position of judging content, and the cases in which they can do that without conflicting with the 1st amendment are rather narrow, such as obscenity, child porn, and community standards for the FCC. Note that "community standard" has never actually put the government in the position of defining offense. I've actually heard "fuck" on my local community radio station
Good decision (Score:3, Insightful)
The next step (Score:3)
The obvious sequel to this is for people who find these terms offensive to trademark them preemptively.
What you have to keep in mind is that a trademark is not a legal right to use a term-- it is a legal right to sue others to prevent them from using it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Would there be a revolt is a white person trademarked the word?
Then blacks couldn't claim " that is our word, you can't use it"....
Just musing over what this might imply...
Damon Wayans (Score:2)
So...will a rapper try to trademark the word n-igg-er
Not exactly a rapper, but when Flex [wikipedia.org] started singing, his stage name was derived from the N word. Damon Wayans attempted to start a clothing line named after the N word [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
"So...will a rapper try to trademark the word n-igg-er (seems you can't actually type the word on slashdot anymore..?)"
Yup, despite being a supposed arena for free thought, free speech is not allowed, here.
Pretty pathetic behavior coming from supposed Americans, if you ask me. They should probably be stripped of their rights to vote since they can't adhere to some of our most basic constitutional guarantees.We have this thing called equal treatment under the law. Nothing in the constitution allows corporati
Re:The next step (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep.
I can say "cracker"...
I can say "honkey"...
I can say "spic"...
I can say "wop"....
I can say "chink"...
I can say "gook"...
And none of these seem to get censored by slashdot.
Why the special treatment of ni--gger?
Re:The next step (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Reason #1: Squeaky wheel problem
Reason #2: Threat of violence from offense takers
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The next step (Score:4, Informative)
Only one of them was actually enslaved in our country.
I don't care what country you are referring to, no one race has been the only one enslaved. The word "slave" is derived from "slav" as in the peoples that live in the Caucasus region. "Caucasus" is where "Caucasian" came from, as in white people. Lots of Irish slaves were in America but in time the economics of enslaving them reduced their numbers. Buying slaves from African tribes just became cheaper is all.
Did one race predominate in slavery? Sure. That does not mean other races did not exist in slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
This must be new. There was (is?) a long running and prolific troll that makes use of the N-word in subject lines and the body of the text. It's usually quickly modded down. I tried a google search, and the N-word isn't on slashdot unless you go to "past year" or longer time frame. So. Maybe they're censoring it now, which means Slashdot isn't pure free speech. We did just fine with the old moderation system--you'd never see those trolls unless you browsed at -1. As for the "why", well... "because".
Re: (Score:3)
no harm to legitimate speech.
Legitimate speech? What's that?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. We can't say "Fucking" either?
Re:The next step (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually understand that quite well.
But unless there is an implicit thought to protect all speech in society to go along with the govt restraints against it....you end up losing the battle.
Places that are actually discussion groups should strive to embrace the "First Amendment " philosophy too, especially when they are American owned and centric groups.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 for: "Places that are actually discussion groups should strive to embrace the "First Amendment " philosophy too"
Re: (Score:2)
So...will a rapper try to trademark the word n-igg-er (seems you can't actually type the word on slashdot anymore..?)....to keep others from using it?
Would there be a revolt is a white person trademarked the word?
Then blacks couldn't claim " that is our word, you can't use it"....
Just musing over what this might imply...
Not exactly. The trademark has to associate with something. If the rapper has a trademark of the N word associated with a certain type of songs, then you can still use the N word here as a regular post. Unless you try to associate it with another type of song which is not the rapper's, then you could be in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but this seems so ludicrous, I must try it for myself as I can barely believe this could happen on slashdot. Yep, "Lameness filter encountered"
Let's try muzzie
Huh, that worked.
Re: (Score:3)
So...will a rapper try to trademark the word n-igg-er (seems you can't actually type the word on slashdot anymore..?)....to keep others from using it?
Would there be a revolt is a white person trademarked the word?
Then blacks couldn't claim " that is our word, you can't use it"....
Just musing over what this might imply...
Based on your statements, I'll assume that either you don't really know anything about how trademark works, or you're just a lousy troll.
No, you cannot trademark a regular word and prevent others from using that word in the course of ordinary conversation. The point of a trademark is to give your product a unique identifier (the "mark") that distinguishes it from other products of the same type (collectively the "trade"), with the goal being to prevent customers from confusing a competitor's product for
Re: (Score:3)
Thus I can call you a slanty redskin all I want, even in print or commercial material, but if I say, "buy this Redskins hat and support your local football team!" then that is preventable.
Re: (Score:2)
Just applied for "Fuck You" and "Fuck Off"
Slashdot will pay me millions!
Re: (Score:2)
No one wants vegemite cunts.
Re: (Score:3)
Trademarks don't work like that. First, they apply to only a specific field (for instance, professional football). More importantly, you must USE the trademark commercially in that field, or you lose it.
Re:The next step (Score:5, Interesting)
The obvious sequel to this is for people who find these terms offensive to trademark them preemptively.
This has already been done with domain names for years. NAACP owns all the obvious racist domain names, and so on. Trademark law, like all traditional legal norms, is still catching up with the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark isn't copyright. You have to use it or lose it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Hate Speech" doesn't exist.
It's all Free Speech.
Hate speech most certainly does exist. Just because it's protected by the first amendment doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Re:Can we stop caring about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is ONLY speech....how you perceive it is completely your opinion.
Re:Can we stop caring about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is ONLY speech....how you perceive it is completely your opinion.
This. And I've spent countless hours trying to bang it into peoples' heads.
You can disagree or dislike what someone says, but they can say the same about you. One can (easily IMHO) argue that all the 'if you support trump you're an idiot/bigot/rapist/etc.' is hate speech. It's directly targeting and disparaging a group of people who share a different personal view of something. No one gets to decide what kind of speech is good vs. bad and still have freedom of speech. It can't exist that way.
Yes, there are some obvious call-outs to like that such as screaming 'fire' when there isn't one...but frankly you could still consider that free speech then charge the person with reckless endangerment or something.
I hate black people and think they should all be euthanized. Hate speech? Substitute 'black people' for cattle ranchers and now you're PETA promoting animal welfare. Substitute for pit bulls and you're politicians promoting safety for children. The examples are endless. I might think you're scum for some of your opinions but I'll still support your right to share them. Oh, and no, I don't support the 'righteous' morons who think violence is an acceptable response to speech they disagree with.
Existence [Re:Can we stop caring about this?] (Score:5, Interesting)
There is ONLY speech....how you perceive it is completely your opinion.
This. And I've spent countless hours trying to bang it into peoples' heads.
We seem to be saying different things. Nothing you posted supports the assertion "hate speech does not exist." What you wrote supports a position "hate speech, like any other kind of speech, is protected by the first amendment."
Fine.
Just don't phrase that using the statement "does not exist."
Re: (Score:2)
My point was 'hate speech' is completely arbitrary to the point of non-existence (or conversely virtually anything would be hate speech).
The concept may exist, but is fatally flawed in that it relies on totally subjective 'logic'. What differs hate speech from saying mean things? Uncomfortable things? etc.
If one wants to have a new descriptive term, then it needs to be defined.
Granted, if the definition is "any speech that is negatively directed towards black people" then I will cede the point (and prom
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you can. It's a common fallacious argument made by people who admit there should be restrictions on speech.
If you look under indictments for people who have said these things, there's no charge against "saying the wrong thing". But you'll find plenty about assault, threats to national security, or inciting public turmoil.
There aren't restrictions on the speech itself. You're also allowed to own a weapon, it doesn't mean you can legally walk around pointing it at random people.
In summary, there sho
Re: (Score:2)
But you'll find plenty about assault, threats to national security, or inciting public turmoil. ... There aren't restrictions on the speech itself.
"Assault" can be nothing more than speech. Classification as a "threat to national security" may be based on nothing more substantial than something you said. "Inciting public turmoil" usually amounts to making a speech the authorities don't care for. All of these "crimes" are restrictions on the speech itself and a violation of the 1st Amendment.
There shouldn't be any restrictions on speech... but in practice, as the law is currently written and interpreted, there are.
Re: (Score:3)
Free speech does not extend the the encouragement, endorsement, or threat of acts of violence.
Sure it does. Certainly any degree of "encouragement" or "endorsement" in the form of speech would not justify a violent response. Threats likewise, though there is a caveat: if your speech gives someone the impression that they are facing an imminent threat of irreversible harm, it would not be unreasonable for them to respond preemptively to counter that threat. That would simply be self-defense; the response is justified by the anticipated act of violence, not by the act of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody said that there aren't any consequences. The question is whether or not it is ILLEGAL to say or write those words. And it is not. Sure, you may get a visit from some not too friendly Secret Service types. You may be put on a watch list. You may be surveilled day and night for indications that you are putting your threat into action (which is of course illegal). Won't you WON'T be is arrested, tried, and convicted of merely saying or writing some words.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely wrong on both
Re: (Score:2)
It does not matter if you truncate it not, it is equally wrong in both cases.
There is a difference between your speech and the consequences of your speech. There are no laws against yelling fire in a theater, whether or not there is a fire. But there ARE laws against things like reckless endangerment. If you yell fire and cause a stampede and people are injured, then you are likely to be charged with reckless endangerment, not because you said some prohibited word but because you actually endangered peop
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Repression does not work and only leads to much more grandiose acts when the repressed party finally reaches their breaking point. For example, a racist who can't speak out about his irrational hated of Black people for fear of being charged with a hate crime; having no outlet for his
Re: (Score:2)
If it exists, then clearly define it.
If your definition is so broad that it encompasses a large portion of speech already, then perhaps some existing definitions are better suited and the term is useless. Kind of like 'assault weapon'
Re: (Score:2)
I hate all nerds with a 7 digit UID.
Go ahead and classify that shit, you weak-minded weak-willed bitch.
Re:Can we stop caring about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hate Speech" doesn't exist.
It's all Free Speech.
Wrong way of looking at it.
"Hate speech" is the important subset of free speech. You don't need a constitution to protect inoffensive speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All controversial speech is political, because of human nature: we try to suppress what annoys, disgusts, or offends us.
Re: (Score:2)
All controversial speech is political, because of human nature: we try to suppress what annoys, disgusts, or offends us.
Okay, but that requires a definition of "political" that's likely a lot more broad than most people think of. All controversial speech is SOCIAL -- I'll grant you that. But yelling an insult at your neighbor is not (by most people's definitions) a "political" act. It may be offensive to your neighbor and to other people who hear it, but that doesn't automatically make it "political."
Political, according to standard dictionary definitions [merriam-webster.com] has something to do with government. Insulting your neighbor (
Re: (Score:2)
Well when people are trying to criminalize 'hate speech' then yes, you do need to refer back to the constitution.
There's no hate speech. There's just stuff some people don't want to hear so they've tried to force their views onto others and restrict speech illegally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
unless the 'potentially offensive' trademark is anything even remotely liberal-leaning. Then the alt-right will scream bloody murder and lawsuits will ensue.
We're use to it bro; been catching your hate all our lives. Right now there is a twitter tag: #HuntRepublicans, created by a (D) operative named James Divine. Nothing new; been going on forever. Hate filled liberals say whatever they want without consequence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
unless the 'potentially offensive' trademark is anything even remotely liberal-leaning. Then the alt-right will scream bloody murder and lawsuits will ensue.
We're use to it bro; been catching your hate all our lives. Right now there is a twitter tag: #HuntRepublicans, created by a (D) operative named James Divine. Nothing new; been going on forever. Hate filled liberals say whatever they want without consequence.
And yell bloody murder when somebody says something that hurts their feelings...
The right understands Tolerance is about my putting up with your wrong ideas regardless of how angry it makes me. The left thinks that tolerance is about me not saying anything that hurts their feelings... So who's going to sue? The left, of course.
Re:They'll complain (Score:4, Interesting)
And yell bloody murder when somebody says something that hurts their feelings...
How's that War on Christmas going?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the good news is that people have been trying to fix that flaw for decades. I get the distinct impression the average American voter has no idea how this country is supposed to work.