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.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 ... 106  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Mon January 07, 2019 2:27 am 
Offline
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 1549
96583UP wrote:
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!"


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Mon January 07, 2019 2:29 am 
Offline
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 3:41 am
Posts: 1549
Green Habit wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-decide-if-trademark-protection-can-be-denied-to-scandalous-brands/2019/01/04/83c18948-1061-11e9-8938-5898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.c4feea608177
Quote:
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?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Mon January 07, 2019 5:32 pm 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 5857
The RBG situation is not looking good.

_________________
Kaius wrote:
I really hope we get this figured out soon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue January 08, 2019 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar
I've been POOSSTTIiiEEnngeeaahh
 Profile

Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am
Posts: 11338
96583UP wrote:
96583UP wrote:
can't wait for ginsburg to announce she has 8 days to live and then Karl Rove gets sworn in

_________________
Best RM Poster of the Year 2018


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue January 08, 2019 12:15 am 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 5857
Supreme Court 2020: Dis suit’s tossed tonight, you can build dat thick ass wall tonight
President: thanks Justice Ye!

_________________
Kaius wrote:
I really hope we get this figured out soon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2019 1:48 pm 
Online
User avatar
10Club Complaint Department
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am
Posts: 16105
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.

_________________
McParadigm wrote:
lol


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2019 2:06 pm 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 5857
Simple Torture wrote:
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.


Warm up the [tweet][/tweet], you know who is gonna drown this thread.

Spoiler: show
(love you McP).

_________________
Kaius wrote:
I really hope we get this figured out soon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2019 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unqualified to be an Admin
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 10814
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
14 months and Mitch McConnell will refuse to interview replacements until the people have a chance to vote.

_________________
"In a roundabout way, Boba Fett created Pearl Jam." - Chuck Klosterman


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri January 11, 2019 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar
10Club Complaint Department
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am
Posts: 17168
Bi_3 wrote:
Simple Torture wrote:
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.


Warm up the [tweet][/tweet], you know who is gonna drown this thread.

Spoiler: show
(love you McP).

I just rock in the tree tops all day long, hoppin' and a-boppin' and singin my song


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue January 22, 2019 1:57 pm 
Online
User avatar
10Club Complaint Department
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 7:41 am
Posts: 16105
Location: Cumberland, RI

_________________
McParadigm wrote:
lol


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue January 22, 2019 2:50 pm 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 5857
Simple Torture wrote:



Image

_________________
Kaius wrote:
I really hope we get this figured out soon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue January 22, 2019 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6144
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.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue January 22, 2019 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Mind Your Tanners
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 6:03 pm
Posts: 9397
Location: Washington State
That does seem oddly specific.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sat February 09, 2019 2:10 am 
Offline
User avatar
Unqualified to be an Admin
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 10814
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?

_________________
"In a roundabout way, Boba Fett created Pearl Jam." - Chuck Klosterman


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sat February 09, 2019 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Legacy of Love
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
Posts: 74231
Location: The applebees on haggerty.
B wrote:
No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?

I mean...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Mon February 11, 2019 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 3820
B wrote:
No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?

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



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri February 15, 2019 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6144


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri February 15, 2019 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6144
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.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue February 19, 2019 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6144
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.)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_2dp3.pdf

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.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue February 19, 2019 8:29 pm 
Offline
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed April 20, 2016 7:11 pm
Posts: 5857
Green Habit wrote:
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.)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_2dp3.pdf

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?

_________________
Kaius wrote:
I really hope we get this figured out soon


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 ... 106  Next

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: potatojunkie and 1 guest


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Sun August 18, 2019 11:43 am