Win! Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of First Amendment

[corbe]

Win! Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of First Amendment

By Jason Hopkins  |  June 20, 2017, 10:00am  |  @thejasonhopkins

The First Amendment scored a huge victory on Monday.

In a majority opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that seemingly offensive trademarks are protected under free speech. The ruling strikes down the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act – a law prohibiting trademark names that “may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

The case was brought forward by the Slants – an Asian American rock group that sought to trademark their name, but was denied. In 2011, the trademark office said registering the Slants’ name would violate the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act.

While losing the first legal rounds, the Slants scored a victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the law violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The argument made its way to the Supreme Court where it ultimately resulted in the Lanham Act’s ouster.

In a Facebook statement, band founder Simon Tam celebrated the victory:

“After an excruciating legal battle that has spanned nearly eight years, we’re beyond humbled and thrilled to have won this case at the Supreme Court. This journey has always been much bigger than our band: it’s been about the rights of all marginalized communities to determine what’s best for ourselves.”

<..snip..>

http://theresurgent.com/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-first-amendment/

[rodamala]

 Great!  I am starting a band called Obama is a ****************************^TM.

Don't do that.  Comment removed by MOD 2.

[rodamala]

Great!  I am starting a band called Obama is a ****************************^TM.

Don't do that.  Comment removed by MOD 2.

The most offensive part of my band name, you failed to strike out.

Further, you have diminished a registered trademark causing great harm to my band.

My lawyers will be contacting you shortly.

@MOD 2

[Jazzhead]

I'm troubled by this ruling.   Will states now be prohibited from censoring content on vanity license plates?   

Any private business can discriminate (other than on the basis of race and other protected classifications in the case of public accommodations) with respect to the use by others of its property.  Why can't the government?  A trademark is a license with commercial value.   I don't see it as protected speech - the government issues a license to use a name in the marketplace in the same way that a private business can decide who to award a franchise to.   I fail to see why the government cannot require that a commercial trademark not be obscene or offensive, in the same way a private business can control the use of its valuable property. 

Of course, perhaps the larger issue is why the government issues trademarks in the first place.  Seems like just the kind of matter than can be delegated to a private entity not under the strictures of the First Amendment.

I can be convinced otherwise,  I suppose,  but it seems to me there's a difference between the government suppressing speech,  and the government requiring certain standards before awarding a license for exclusive use of a  name in the commercial marketplace.