The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
but the issue is not the graphic depicting a rice-paddy ch*nk stereotype?
asking for a self-loathing white cis friend
"Anyone who runs is a VC. Anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined VC! Anyone with Chibi eyes is a VC Major! You should do a story about me sometime!"
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.
The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.
Quote:
“The scandalous-marks provision does not prohibit any speech, proscribe any conduct, or restrict the use of any trademark. Nor does it restrict a mark owner’s common-law trademark protections,” Francisco wrote. “Rather, it simply directs the USPTO to refuse, on a viewpoint-neutral basis, to provide the benefits of federal registration to scandalous marks.”
But the Supreme Court in 2017 ruled unanimously that another part of the trademark law — one that banned registering trademarks that were considered “disparaging”— violated the First Amendment.
That ruling, Matal v. Tam, came in a case that involved an Asian American rock group called the Slants, which tried to register the band’s name in 2011. The band was turned down by the USPTO because officials said it was likely to offend Asian Americans.
heh, FUCT.
This aspiring business will be keen[e]ly watching this case.
Between this and the Slants case (presuming FUCT prevails) what would be the standard for refusing trademarks?
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22385
96583UP wrote:
96583UP wrote:
can't wait for ginsburg to announce she has 8 days to live and then Karl Rove gets sworn in
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Supreme Court 2020: Dis suit’s tossed tonight, you can build dat thick ass wall tonight President: thanks Justice Ye!
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am Posts: 19724 Location: Cumberland, RI
Bi_3 wrote:
The RBG situation is not looking good.
Some reports this morning that the White House is already putting together a short list of replacements. People need to start girding themselves for this now, because it's going to happen sooner rather than later.
Some reports this morning that the White House is already putting together a short list of replacements. People need to start girding themselves for this now, because it's going to happen sooner rather than later.
Warm up the [tweet][/tweet], you know who is gonna drown this thread.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Some reports this morning that the White House is already putting together a short list of replacements. People need to start girding themselves for this now, because it's going to happen sooner rather than later.
Warm up the [tweet][/tweet], you know who is gonna drown this thread.
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
Everyone's talking today about SCOTUS refusing to stay Trump's trans ban in the military, but what alarmed me more was the right wing signaling that they're interested in reversing Employment Division v. Smith. That would be a disaster waiting to happen.
From what I read it sounded like this Louisiana law is virtually identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. If that's the case it's interesting that a circuit court voted to upheld this law.
In the 2016 case Roberts dissented and Kennedy was still on the Court. So if the Supreme Court does hear this case it isn't hard to envision a 5-4 opinion reversing Hellerstedt (the Texas case) if Roberts rules the same way and Kavanaugh and Gorsuch rule in favor of it. (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both voted to allow the LA law to go into effect as it is reviewed, while Roberts ruled with the 4 liberals to issue a stay.)
It's definitely a case to watch. I could be wrong, but I believe that only the Supreme Court is left, so if they end up not hearing the case it would allow the law to go into effect. If they heard the case they could follow 2016's precedent and strike it down, or they could obviously go the other way and reverse Hellerstedt.
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
B wrote:
No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?
I guess I shouldn't have forgotten about commenting on this.
My simple read is that Roberts wants to slow down the train on any sort of vote that could significantly curtail Roe or the right to an abortion in general, knowing how hot button of an issue it is--perhaps the most hot button of them all.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
Thomas wants to junk the actual malice requirement against public figures that must be satisfied in order for a defamation lawsuit against them to pass First Amendment muster. He cleverly uses such a suit against Bill Cosby to make this case. (Starts at page 45 on this order list.)
Thomas wants to junk the actual malice requirement against public figures that must be satisfied in order for a defamation lawsuit against them to pass First Amendment muster. He cleverly uses such a suit against Bill Cosby to make this case. (Starts at page 45 on this order list.)
I agree that this double standard should be junked. Either subject all defamation cases to the actual malice standard, or subject none of them to it.
You aren’t worried that would lead to silencing dissent?
_________________ "The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum