U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2017, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2017 09:42 AM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
Supreme Court ruled 8-0 to strike down a law that allows the U.S. Patent office to deny "disparaging" trademarks. At issue was an Asian band that had named themselves "the Slants."

This is the same law that was used to pull the Washington Redskins trademarks. Guess they'll have to give them their trademark back since the law was deemed unconstitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politics/s...index.html

This is an excellent decision by the Supreme Court IMO. The government should not be in the business of prohibiting, or regulating free speech.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Lord Dark Helmet's post
19-06-2017, 10:12 AM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
In a 2nd free speech case, the court struck down a North Carolina law that prohibited sex offenders from using Facebook.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2017, 10:15 AM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
This is one area where I agree with the conservatives that the "free market" which to my mind includes the marketplace of ideas, should really rule the day. Go ahead and name your restaurant, sports team, band, movie, TV show, etc. any disparaging insulting low-class name you want. The government shouldn't stop you. They also shouldn't stop your critics and naysayers. If the end result is the free market decides it wants nothing to do with your product or service and your business or organization goes under - that's on you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Mr. Boston's post
19-06-2017, 10:48 AM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 10:15 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  This is one area where I agree with the conservatives
...

The irony, of course, being that freedom of expression in its current form (post-Athens and Rome and shit) stems from both republicanism and liberalism...

Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:
- the right to seek information and ideas;
- the right to receive information and ideas;
- the right to impart information and ideas

Quote:Milton's own beliefs were in some cases both unpopular and dangerous, and this was true particularly to his commitment to republicanism. In coming centuries, Milton would be claimed as an early apostle of liberalism.

I feel like I'm living in an Orwellian dystopia where The Republican™ party has become a non-hereditary monarchy (aka a tyranny) and The Conservatives™ extol classical liberal policies.

WTF?!?!?

Huh

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
19-06-2017, 12:20 PM
U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 10:12 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  In a 2nd free speech case, the court struck down a North Carolina law that prohibited sex offenders from using Facebook.


I think they should be restricted from reaching out to children.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2017, 12:34 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
Does this mean the DMV will have to issue the "N4Q2" license plate I applied for?

Smile

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
19-06-2017, 01:25 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
I am on the fence on such decisions. Just like that it sounds great, but i would be interested in seeing the details underlying such judgement to see how it oder itself with the right to equity and the protection of minorities. I would also like to see how it will affect naming conventions. In many places, the court can refuse to allow parents to name babies with extraordinarly stupid or offensive names. The idea that the "free market of ideology" can regulate itself is about as stupid as the idea that the economical free market can regulate itself to produce a stable, equitable and free society.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
19-06-2017, 01:33 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
The irony was that the "Redskins" name was not a disparaging comment against Native Americans. It was a reference to the body paint used by the warriors of the Beothuk, a tribe of what is now Newfoundland, leading the early settlers to reference the "red men". Later, in 1769, the Piankashaws used the word to refer to themselves (to differentiate from the white men on the other side of the treaty) as "redskins" during treaty negotiations with Col. John Wilkins. Finally, the term came into widespread use after J.F. Cooper lamented in his novel The Pioneers that the "red man" was all but extinguished on this continent.

Sadly, just before the start of the 20th century, the term began to take on a more sinister usage, and there were a number of quite awful things written by racists-- such as Frank Baum, of Wizard of Oz fame-- in the 1930s that made the term have a negative overtone.

But the word itself does not have an origin in bigotry, and the sports team was not trying to be racist... it's no worse than appropriating the term "Chiefs" for Kansas City's team and "Braves" for Atlanta's baseball team, et cetera, in terms of the treatment of Native Americans, however bad it may sound to the modern ear.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2...of-redskin

As such, I concur that the government should stay out of the business of policing language (unless it is directly threatening, or as an element that must be proved during sentencing to demonstrate a crime was motivated by racial bigotry, in order to enhance that sentence).

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
19-06-2017, 01:55 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
It's probably a good decision, as long as we remember no one has the *absolute right* to anything. We have the right to what is "reasonable" (at the time, and that changes all the time). Even Scalia agreed with that. It's a moving target, and always will be.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-06-2017, 01:56 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 01:25 PM)epronovost Wrote:  In many places, the court can refuse to allow parents to name babies with extraordinarly stupid or offensive names.

Citation please -- in the United States.

There was the hubbub about the kid named Adolf Hitler and the bakery who refused to put the name on a cake. But I'm unaware of the courts approving baby names (I suppose if a parent disagrees that could be for the court to decide, but I dunno).


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: