Uncle Sam can take away your..... logo.

[Pulsar]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ang-members-by-claiming-rights-to-their-logo/

This doesn't feel right. The logo didn't commit the crime. It doesn't help them commit a crime. The logic is faulty, and if this goes through it seems to open the door to a whole lot of abuses. What about all the members wearing the logo who didn't commit crimes?

This seems to cross a line for me. I see their argument, but you could apply it so widely in so many different ways.... the flag of North Korea? What other icons or symbols are tied to hatred, violence, and crime? The democrat donkey and the republican elephant perhaps?

 

[JEDI]

what a joke.. 1st amendment anyone?

if the US cant ban the Nazi symbol or kkk, then no way will this fly

 

[Captante]

This is just stupid. I certainly hope it doesn't fly but given the trampling our rights have taken in the last few years it really wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[boomerang]

Here's the key part of this quoted below. Bolding is mine.

In 2008, the ATF issued 110 arrest warrants in four states, accusing club members of murder, drug trafficking, robbery, extortion and money laundering. As part of a plea deal, the club president forfeited rights to the Mongol trademark to the Department of Justice, and a federal judge granted an injunction prohibiting club members from wearing, licensing, selling, or distributing the any materials depicting the Mongolian warrior.

The Mongol trademark was surrendered - willingly, by their leader. Another judge partially lifted the injunction. What is unclear from the article is which party has brought this back into court. But what is clear is that 'Uncle Sam' didn't take away anything.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Meh. Cops confiscate stuff all the time for various reasons. Intellectual property rights (to a logo or trademark) are just another form of property.

Get angry about the right things, people.

 

[thraashman]

Here's the key part of this quoted below. Bolding is mine.



The Mongol trademark was surrendered - willingly, by their leader. Another judge partially lifted the injunction. What is unclear from the article is which party has brought this back into court. But what is clear is that 'Uncle Sam' didn't take away anything.

Aww man, I agree with boomerang. Dammit.

 

[boomerang]

Aww man, I agree with boomerang. Dammit.

Don't beat yourself up too bad. I agree with you occasionally too.

 

[BurnItDwn]

So this is a total non-issue, and fox propaganda is doing their usual thing and spinning and fear mongering...

 

[PokerGuy]

Here's the key part of this quoted below. Bolding is mine.

The Mongol trademark was surrendered - willingly, by their leader. Another judge partially lifted the injunction. What is unclear from the article is which party has brought this back into court. But what is clear is that 'Uncle Sam' didn't take away anything.

Did you miss this part:

After the Mongols, sources say prosecutors would hope to use the same technique against other "OMG's" -- outlaw motorcycle gangs like the Hells Angels, the Outlaws in the Midwest, the Pagans in the East, the Bandidos in Texas and others.

This is a tactic they want to use to get rid of biker gangs altogether, and I'm 100% opposed to squashing 1st amendment rights in the name of some vague concept of fighting crime. Talk about a slippery slope......

If the Mongol trademark was surrendered willingly, that's fine, but then why are the lawyers for the government in court making arguments to use RICO type racketeering statutes to ban the use of the logo on jackets? It should be a very straight forward IP/trademark infringement case. Obviously there's more going on there.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Did you miss this part:

This is a tactic they want to use to get rid of biker gangs altogether, and I'm 100% opposed to squashing 1st amendment rights in the name of some vague concept of fighting crime. Talk about a slippery slope......

If the Mongol trademark was surrendered willingly, that's fine, but then why are the lawyers for the government in court making arguments to use RICO type racketeering statutes to ban the use of the logo on jackets? It should be a very straight forward IP/trademark infringement case. Obviously there's more going on there.

They dont want to get rid of biker gangs, they want to get rid of OUTLAW biker gangs. most biker 'gangs' are more or less social clubs for friendly bikers.

 

[CPA]

So this is a total non-issue, and fox propaganda is doing their usual thing and spinning and fear mongering...

How is this propaganda. They are reporting a court case and specifically stated that the logo was surrendered. Fear mongering not found.

 

[BurnItDwn]

How is this propaganda. They are reporting a court case and specifically stated that the logo was surrendered. Fear mongering not found.

They are making this into some kind of first amendment thing ... its not.

 

[boomerang]

If the Mongol trademark was surrendered willingly, that's fine, but then why are the lawyers for the government in court making arguments to use RICO type racketeering statutes to ban the use of the logo on jackets? It should be a very straight forward IP/trademark infringement case. Obviously there's more going on there.

Don't agree. The Mongol's lost their rights to their logo in a plea bargain case. If and when the feds have a case against other outlaw gangs that involves "murder, drug trafficking, robbery, extortion and money laundering" those gangs may have the opportunity to plea bargain away their logo too.

You're drawing a conclusion while bypassing the key component. The feds aren't going to a judge and saying hey Mr. Judge, we want the rights to the Hells Angels logo and a judge is saying not a problem, here you go. There absolutely is a process here and in this instance it was brought on by some very undesirable behavior by an outlaw biker gang.

I don't see murder, drug trafficking, robbery, extortion and money laundering as desirable actions. But maybe that's just me.

The key words in your quote to me are "would hope to use" not 'are using'.

 

[boomerang]

They are making this into some kind of first amendment thing ... its not.

It might be helpful if you posted some quotes from the article backing up your assertion. I've read it now, three times and I'm just not seeing anything supporting what you're saying.

 

[BurnItDwn]

It might be helpful if you posted some quotes from the article backing up your assertion. I've read it now, three times and I'm just not seeing anything supporting what you're saying.

I guess im stretching things maybe ...

I see them casually mentioning in the article

The Mongols mount a First Amendment defense, arguing in court papers the "government's sole purpose in filing the indictment is to crush the Mongols Nation Motorcycle Club by seizing the intellectual rights to the 'Rider' and 'Mongol' marks and thereby quash the Club and its members rights to freedom of expression and association."

Then later I see this: After the Mongols, sources say prosecutors would hope to use the same technique against other "OMG's" -- outlaw motorcycle gangs like the Hells Angels, the Outlaws in the Midwest, the Pagans in the East, the Bandidos in Texas and others.

Its just the way I interpreted the article, FOX seemed focused on telling one side of the story from the point of view of the one side of the story ....

 

[senseamp]

Here's the key part of this quoted below. Bolding is mine.



The Mongol trademark was surrendered - willingly, by their leader. Another judge partially lifted the injunction. What is unclear from the article is which party has brought this back into court. But what is clear is that 'Uncle Sam' didn't take away anything.

Does surrendering a way of free expression under threat of jail qualify as "willingly?" If it does, there is no free expression.
The plea deal violated the First Amendment, IMO, and is thus unconstitutional and unenforceable.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Uncle Sam can will take away your ..... logo . when you give it away.

 

[Genx87]

Does surrendering a way of free expression under threat of jail qualify as "willingly?" If it does, there is no free expression.
The plea deal violated the First Amendment, IMO, and is thus unconstitutional and unenforceable.

I mean really. The US govt piles on the charges to bully a perp into surrendering a group logo? That does not fall under willing to me. And quite frankly I think something like this is a slippery slope for groups the US govt deems illegal regardless of conviction. They find a perp within the group, have that perp surrender the group logo and overnight the entire group can be harassed by law enforcement for wearing clothing.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Ugh.

First there is outrage over killing Americans who are shooting at American soldiers in the battlefield and now there is outrage over outlaw bikers losing their logo.

You guys sound like a bunch of bleeding hearts.

But, lets be honest, you aren't a bunch of sissies - it's because the government is doing it that you are all a flutter. You are willing to look past the dead American soldiers and criminal behavior of a biker gang, just to cry about how the government is oppressive. Or rather, could possibly may be oppressive.

Meanwhile, if someone as so much sneezes in your general direction, you will gladly gun them down and claim you were in fear of your life and just protecting yourself.

 

[Moonbeam]

Does surrendering a way of free expression under threat of jail qualify as "willingly?" If it does, there is no free expression.
The plea deal violated the First Amendment, IMO, and is thus unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Sorry but it's not just something they were willing to do, it's something they plead to have done. Every person going to jail does so because he has forfeited rights by violating the rights of others. Once you have lost the right to freedom from legal incarceration you may have a chance to give up some right in exchange for another you no longer have, willingly, if doing so suits you and the authorities who legally can make such a deal.

 

[Moonbeam]

Aww man, I agree with boomerang. Dammit.

Take comfort in the fact that you did so when he was right.

 

[Darwin333]

Does surrendering a way of free expression under threat of jail qualify as "willingly?" If it does, there is no free expression.
The plea deal violated the First Amendment, IMO, and is thus unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Playing devil's advocate, money has been ruled to be speech so can the exact same argument not be made for government fines?

For the record, I'm not sure that I agree with what the .gov is doing here or not, just making conversation.

 

[sunzt]

 

[senseamp]

Sorry but it's not just something they were willing to do, it's something they plead to have done. Every person going to jail does so because he has forfeited rights by violating the rights of others. Once you have lost the right to freedom from legal incarceration you may have a chance to give up some right in exchange for another you no longer have, willingly, if doing so suits you and the authorities who legally can make such a deal.

The Constitution > Plea bargain.
Government is not be allowed to ask you to give up free expression under threat of a longer sentence. Also, the government is using this to suppress free expression of other people who were not convicted of any crime.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This, so this.........