Supreme Court, 8-0, thumbs up the use of ethnic slur for band's name.

[Atreus21]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...t-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute

Members of the Asian-American rock band The Slants have the right to call themselves by a disparaging name, the Supreme Court says, in a ruling that could have broad impact on how the First Amendment is applied in other trademark cases.

The Slants' frontman, Simon Tam, filed a lawsuit after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office kept the band from registering its name and rejected its appeal, citing the Lanham Act, which prohibits any trademark that could "disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead," as the court states.

After a federal court agreed with Tam and his band, the Patent and Trademark Office sued to avoid being compelled to register its name as a trademark. On Monday, the Supreme Court sided with The Slants.

"The disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion for the court. Contrary to the Government's contention, trademarks are private, not government speech."

The band has said it wanted to reclaim what is often seen as a slur.

Tam said in January. "Kids would pull their eyes back in a slant-eyed gesture to make fun of us. ... I wanted to change it to something that was powerful, something that was considered beautiful or a point of pride instead."

As the article continues beyond what I quoted of it, it's difficult to say what this portends regarding things like the Redskins name dispute, or other names that the trademark office has refused to register like "Abort the Republicans" or "Democrats shouldn't Bread."

But on its face I agree with the ruling. Hate speech remains free speech. From the court's opinion: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

Gorsuch is the absent 9th vote. He wasn't on the court when the case was heard in January.

 

[dank69]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...t-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute



As the article continues beyond what I quoted of it, it's difficult to say what this portends regarding things like the Redskins name dispute, or other names that the trademark office has refused to register like "Abort the Republicans" or "Democrats shouldn't Bread."

But on its face I agree with the ruling. Hate speech remains free speech. From the court's opinion: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

Gorsuch is the absent 9th vote. He wasn't on the court when the case was heard in January.

I dunno, I hear they make some good bread in SF.

 

[Atreus21]

I dunno, I hear they make some good bread in SF.

Yeah well they shouldn't.

 

[agent00f]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...t-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute



As the article continues beyond what I quoted of it, it's difficult to say what this portends regarding things like the Redskins name dispute, or other names that the trademark office has refused to register like "Abort the Republicans" or "Democrats shouldn't Bread."

But on its face I agree with the ruling. Hate speech remains free speech. From the court's opinion: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

Gorsuch is the absent 9th vote. He wasn't on the court when the case was heard in January.

When future courts try to use this as precedent it's going to be a classic case of the "black people use the n-word so why can't I" defense.

 

[woolfe9998]

Since this band was using the term as a way of appropriating a slur to turn it into something which is not perceived as a slur, the way that gays have appropriated the word "queer" - I wonder if the ruling was at all based on that being the intent behind it. If so, then this holding will be limited and may not apply to the Redskins or other similar situations.

 

[HomerJS]

When future courts try to use this as precedent it's going to be a classic case of the "black people use the n-word so why can't I" defense.

You can use it. Just deal with the consequences.

BTW - Ruling makes sense.

 

[sandorski]

Democrats shouldn't eat sammiches?

 

[Zorba]

Since this band was using the term as a way of appropriating a slur to turn it into something which is not perceived as a slur, the way that gays have appropriated the word "queer" - I wonder if the ruling was at all based on that being the intent behind it. If so, then this holding will be limited and may not apply to the Redskins or other similar situations.

From my understanding the ruling was a full rejection of the idea that the patent office could censor trademarks. The government argument that a trademark becomes government speech instead of free speech was flatly rejected.

I'm personally very pro first amendment so I think this is a good ruling.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Since this band was using the term as a way of appropriating a slur to turn it into something which is not perceived as a slur, the way that gays have appropriated the word "queer" - I wonder if the ruling was at all based on that being the intent behind it. If so, then this holding will be limited and may not apply to the Redskins or other similar situations.

I'm betting it had more to do with the band claiming that their name was part of their art and that artistic expression is protected.

 

[Thebobo]

Already a thread

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ns-lose-trademark-on-team-name.2387856/page-7

 

[Roflmouth]

When future courts try to use this as precedent it's going to be a classic case of the "black people use the n-word so why can't I" defense.

Which case against the Lanham Act has ever used that as an example? Go ahead and cite it right here ------------>

 

[agent00f]

Which case against the Lanham Act has ever used that as an example? Go ahead and cite it right here ------------>

^ When slow racists try to regurgitate something smart sounding but can't quite apply it correctly to a situation.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I see nothing derogatory in what they(bands, teams, groups, etc.) call themselves, it is what people call other people.