Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 19, 2017

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal trademark law banning offensive names is unconstitutional, siding with a rock band whose name had been deemed racially disparaging by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In an 8-0 ruling, the court determined the law's so-called "disparagement clause" violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The case centered on Oregon-based, Asian-American band ... which was denied a trademark because its name was considered offensive. The band countered that the 70-year-old law at issue violates free-speech rights -- and Justice Samuel Alito, in the court's opinion, agreed.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The victory for the band could have broader implications and be welcome news for the Washington Redskins, embroiled in its own legal fight over the team's name. The trademark office canceled the football team's lucrative trademarks in 2014 after finding the word "Redskins" is disparaging to Native Americans.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Redskins are safe now. Peanuts of course...

#1 | Posted by homerj at 2017-06-19 01:09 PM | Reply

Is their music any good?

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-06-19 01:27 PM | Reply

Is their music any good?

Posted by ClownShack at 2017-06-19 01:27 PM | Reply

It's too tilted to one side.

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-19 01:31 PM | Reply

This means the trademark office has to allow the Redskins to keep their trademarked name?

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-19 01:32 PM | Reply

#4... www.theslants.com

No. It's not good.

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2017-06-19 01:32 PM | Reply

#6

Yes, and it was unanimous, which was a mild surprise.

#8 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-06-19 06:58 PM | Reply

"Scotus Overturns Law Against Offensive Trademarks"

Stated another way, the SC reiterates that there is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-19 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Really?

So my Trump's-mom's-a-skank beer is good to go?

#10 | Posted by Tor at 2017-06-19 08:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Big win for the 1st Amendment, just like Citizens United!

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 08:14 PM | Reply

Big win for the 1st Amendment, just like Citizens United!

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 08:14 PM | Reply

Corporations aren't people. They are government created constructs therefore Citizens United isn't a first Amendment protected issue.

#12 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-19 08:18 PM | Reply

Big win for the 1st Amendment, just like Citizens United!

#11 | Posted by JeffJ

Citizens UNited was a big win for the first amendment, if you buy the fallacy that money=speech.

Citizens united helps the rich tighten their stranglehold on our government. The rich don't even have to spend to get their way anymore. The mere THREAT that they could do so is enough to sway policy.

CU basically put a political bazooka in the hands of the rich. You don't need to shoot a bazooka in order to get your way with it.

If you agree with the agenda of the rich, then CU is a good thing. If you believe in representative democracy where the gov should serve the voters, then CU is a disaster.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 08:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

reclaimdemocracy.org

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

#14 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-19 08:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

CU was about the federal government censoring political speech. 1st Amendment win!

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 08:42 PM | Reply

Kewl "Trump vagina neck ties" are coming!!!!!

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-06-19 08:43 PM | Reply

While I absolutely think CU was a 1st Amendment victory, I brought it up as troll bait.

On topic, I'm guessing that progressives are pissed about this ruling? I say that given how progressives reacted to the Patent and Trade Mark office refusing to re-up the Redskins trademark.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 08:46 PM | Reply

CU was about the federal government censoring political speech. 1st Amendment win!

#15 | Posted by JeffJ

Based on the falacy that money=speech.

democracy fail.

But hey as long as it helps your side, who cares if the rich get to run the country? You clearly think that's really how it should be anyway.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 08:46 PM | Reply

No. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from censoring political speech, among other things. You clearly think they should be able to censor political speech.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 08:47 PM | Reply

No. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from censoring political speech, among other things. You clearly think they should be able to censor political speech.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ

I think they should be able to outlaw bribery and blackmail, which are illegal except in election funding, again because of the ridiculous fallacy that money=speech.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-06-19 08:59 PM | Reply

"CU was about the federal government censoring political speech."

What nonsense.

It was about getting more money into politics, anonymously, without having to take public responsibility.

Folks yammer all the time about "free speech", but let's be clear: this is "paid" speech. World of difference. It's no longer "one man, one vote", it's "more money, more votes".

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 09:04 PM | Reply

No. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from censoring political speech, among other things. You clearly think they should be able to censor political speech.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 08:47 PM | Reply

No Sir. The first Amendment protects the PEOPLES right to free speech. It does not protect a corporations right to free speech because they by their very nature are NOT people.

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-19 09:04 PM | Reply

CU was about the federal government censoring political speech. 1st Amendment win!

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually it's a 1St Amendment loss. It gives more political weight to the rich corporations and hurts the rights of the poor to have their issues addressed because they will listen to the deep pockets and ignore the little person.

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-19 09:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because they by their very nature [corporations] are NOT people.

Corporations are an association of people. Why should a group of people engaged in political advocacy give up that advocacy solely because they choose to do so through a corporation formed for business or tax reasons?

BTW, the federal government and your state government disagree with you.

#24 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-19 09:33 PM | Reply

"Why should a group of people engaged in political advocacy give up that advocacy solely because they choose to do so through a corporation formed for business or tax reasons?"

For one, they get protections the average citizen doesn't. Swindle one person, a citizen goes to jail. Swindle 10,000 people, the corporation pays a fine.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 09:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Same with the IRS. A citizen pays the tax and fines. A corporation (usually) pays less than they profited.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 09:37 PM | Reply

The text of the 1st Amendment makes ZERO exceptions for censoring speech. If you think otherwise, please provide proof. I'll wait. Historically, the courts have been extremely limited regarding exceptions granted where the government can prohibit free speech.

BTW - publishing a book requires money. Producing a documentary requires money. Heck, printing and distributing fliers costs money. The 1st Amendment has never been limited to individuals standing on a soap box on a street corner.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 09:45 PM | Reply

#25

Okay, now address the question.

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-19 09:48 PM | Reply

welcome news for the Washington Redskins, embroiled in its own legal fight over the team's name. The trademark office canceled the football team's lucrative trademarks in 2014 after finding the word "Redskins" is disparaging to Native Americans.

Came here to read an update on this situation;was partly satisfied.

#29 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-06-19 09:54 PM | Reply

"Why should a group of people engaged in political advocacy give up that advocacy solely because they choose to do so through a corporation formed for business or tax reasons?"

Because as individuals, they already have free speech.

Now we're talking about paid speech, which ends up equating with more votes.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 10:33 PM | Reply

"which ends up equating with more votes."

Sorry...which ends up equating with more influence.

IOW, the CEO already has free speech rights. With the corporation, he gets more speech than the average Joe, and a lobbying arm to boot.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 10:34 PM | Reply

Because as individuals, they already have free speech.

Why should the individuals speech be lost when done through the corporate form?

Now we're talking about paid speech, which ends up equating with more votes.

Paid speech? How so?

CU is about independent expenditures.

#32 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-19 10:45 PM | Reply

"Why should the individuals speech be lost when done through the corporate form?"

It's not, at all. Currently, it's amplified. The individual already has free speech rights.

"Paid speech? How so?"

Time on TV or Radio, or space in publications is bought. Paid speech.

"CU is about independent expenditures."

Nonsense. CU is about getting dark money into politics, where limits are circumvented, and donors can be secretive rather than appear on the public donation rolls.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 11:11 PM | Reply

Bottom line, if someone has more influence because he has more money to buy it, that's an admission our form of government is for sale.

Not that we didn't know as much already.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-19 11:13 PM | Reply

"CU is about independent expenditures."

Nonsense. CU is about getting dark money into politics, where limits are circumvented, and donors can be secretive rather than appear on the public donation rolls.

Then you misunderstand CU. It struck a section of campaign finance law that prohibited corporations and unions from making "independent expenditures" within thirty days of a federal election. Specifically, CU was prohibited from showing "Hillary, The Movie" which it produced and proposed to pay for airing.

"Dark money" is the result of vagaries of the tax code where contributions can be made to certain 501(c) organizations without disclosing the donor. Granted dark money exploded after CU but the case is not what permitted it. The exact same contributions could have been made before CU.

Bottom line, if someone has more influence because he has more money to buy it, that's an admission our form of government is for sale.

So we get to the real issue. It's not corporations, not independent expenditure, not dark money. It money in politics. Period. And I tend to agree. Yet, that is not the system.

The system permits money. The question is how the system functions constitutionally. The First Amendment plays a big role, political speech is the zenith of the First Amendment. People pool their money and advocate politically. Some do it as individuals, some as corporations, some as unions. Absent major system change it is not going away. So it's best to figure out how to deal with it.

#35 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-20 12:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

""Dark money" is the result of vagaries of the tax code where contributions can be made to certain 501(c) organizations without disclosing the donor. Granted dark money exploded after CU but the case is not what permitted it. The exact same contributions could have been made before CU."

PACs are NOT non-profits, and not organized under 501(c). PACs are under section 527, and donations to PACs are not deductible.

"It money in politics. Period. "

It's IRRESPONSIBLE money in politics, and it's UNLIMITED money in politics, where Mr. X can donate $3 million to Candidate Y's PAC, without Mr. X's reputation being publicly tied to his donation, and where he can circumvent donation limits of normal campaigns. Meanwhile the rest of us have to stomach the charade it's all being done altruistically.

"Absent major system change it is not going away."

Okay, let's make a major change. Because as it is, the "government for sale" is embarrassingly obvious.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-06-20 01:10 AM | Reply

PACs are NOT non-profits, and not organized under 501(c). PACs are under section 527, and donations to PACs are not deductible

True, it depends on the tax code. My point. CU did not deal with the tax code.

It's IRRESPONSIBLE money in politics ...

According to whom? You? Polls? Pundits? Nuts on either side?

Okay, let's make a major change.

Works for me. Public financing.

#37 | Posted by et_al at 2017-06-20 01:35 AM | Reply

The text of the 1st Amendment makes ZERO exceptions for censoring speech. If you think otherwise, please provide proof. I'll wait. Historically, the courts have been extremely limited regarding exceptions granted where the government can prohibit free speech.

BTW - publishing a book requires money. Producing a documentary requires money. Heck, printing and distributing fliers costs money. The 1st Amendment has never been limited to individuals standing on a soap box on a street corner.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-06-19 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

History isn't on your side.

www.theatlantic.com

Constitutional Myth #5: Corporations Have the Same Free-Speech Rights as Individuals

#38 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-06-20 04:26 AM | Reply

#38, that article is a complaint against the ruling of the court?

www.jamesmadisoncenter.org

An argument of interpretation?

#39 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-06-20 10:43 AM | Reply

Redskins are safe now. Peanuts of course...
#1 | POSTED BY HOMERJ

That name is only offensive to white liberals. LOL.

www.washingtonpost.com

#40 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 11:53 AM | Reply

new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name

#41 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 11:53 AM | Reply

It's no longer "one man, one vote", it's "more money, more votes".

Considering how much Democrats threw into a local race in Georgia this week, that's an insightful comment.

#42 | Posted by boaz at 2017-06-20 12:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Money is not speech and never has been, CU shillers.

#43 | Posted by Sully at 2017-06-20 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Considering how much Democrats threw into a local race in Georgia this week..." - #42 | Posted by "col." boaz at 2017-06-20 12:16 PM

Republicans threw nothing in?

#44 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Republicans threw nothing in?
#44 | POSTED BY HANS

LOL.

You can't pick on someone and then turn around and be an idiot.

#45 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 12:32 PM | Reply

You covet the role?

#46 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2017-06-20 12:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

just an observation.

#47 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 12:37 PM | Reply

#44 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 12:28 PM | Reply | Flagged funny by LastAmerican

Apparently, some people don't understand the whole flagging thingy.

#48 | Posted by Hans at 2017-06-20 12:39 PM | Reply

ok.... What?

#49 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2017-06-20 02:13 PM | Reply

It's IRRESPONSIBLE money in politics, and it's UNLIMITED money in politics, where Mr. X can donate $3 million to Candidate Y's PAC, without Mr. X's reputation being publicly tied to his donation, and where he can circumvent donation limits of normal campaigns. Meanwhile the rest of us have to stomach the charade it's all being done altruistically.

#36 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-06-20 01:10 AM | FLAG:

Hillary out-spent Trump 2 to 1. She still lost.

Dems just outspent Republicans 5 to 1 in Georgia. Ossoff still lost.

Money isn't everything.

#50 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-06-21 08:03 AM | Reply

"Dark money" is the result of vagaries of the tax code where contributions can be made to certain 501(c) organizations without disclosing the donor. Granted dark money exploded after CU but the case is not what permitted it. The exact same contributions could have been made before CU."

NW

#51 | Posted by eberly at 2017-06-21 08:50 AM | Reply

I can think of some nice names for a new band.
Trumpsuxass
Trumpersuxarse
Trumpydumpy
Trumperliesalot
Trumpers are dumber than pig excrement.
Free speech at work.

#52 | Posted by tknees at 2017-06-21 11:06 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort