Mon January 07, 2019 2:27 am
96583UP wrote:but the issue is not the graphic depicting a rice-paddy ch*nk stereotype?
asking for a self-loathing white cis friend
Mon January 07, 2019 2:29 am
Green Habit wrote:This aspiring business will be keen[e]ly watching this case.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=.c4feea608177The 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.“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.
Mon January 07, 2019 5:32 pm
Tue January 08, 2019 12:03 am
96583UP wrote:96583UP wrote:can't wait for ginsburg to announce she has 8 days to live and then Karl Rove gets sworn in
Tue January 08, 2019 12:15 am
Fri January 11, 2019 1:48 pm
Bi_3 wrote:The RBG situation is not looking good.
Fri January 11, 2019 2:06 pm
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.
Fri January 11, 2019 3:10 pm
Fri January 11, 2019 3:14 pm
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
Tue January 22, 2019 1:57 pm
Tue January 22, 2019 2:50 pm
Simple Torture wrote:
Tue January 22, 2019 8:21 pm
Tue January 22, 2019 10:16 pm
Sat February 09, 2019 2:10 am
Sat February 09, 2019 4:19 pm
B wrote:No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?
Mon February 11, 2019 4:28 pm
B wrote:No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?
Fri February 15, 2019 6:48 pm
Fri February 15, 2019 6:53 pm
I guess I shouldn't have forgotten about commenting on this.B wrote:No comments on Brett's first anti-abortion vote?
Tue February 19, 2019 3:13 pm
Tue February 19, 2019 8:29 pm
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.