• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.

The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.

U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional

Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.

The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.

U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional

Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.

Laughed my ass off today when I heard this ruling. Good for the band! Maybe the Redskins can finally tell the liberals to **** off now.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.

The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.

U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional

Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.

The Court is supposed to be above political influence and should rely only on the Constitution, precedent, and good judgment. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about here.

An 8-0 or 9-0 decision usually means that there is very little if anything in their decision to argue against legally.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.

The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.

U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional

Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.


Libertarian here; I'm all for freedom of speech

well, at least now the GOP can utilize their full name, Grumpy Old Phucks, instead of an acronym ..........

I guess this also means that terrorist can still recruit via the WWW?
 
Last edited:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.

The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.

U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional

Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.

8-0, and got it right, how rare is that anymore with our crap SCOTUS....
 
Wow, SCOTUS didn't **** something up. Congrats to SCOTUS for only sucking 99.9% of the time.
 
Libertarian here; I'm all for freedom of speech

well, at least now the GOP can utilize their full name, Grumpy Old Phucks, instead of an acronym ..........

I guess this also means that terrorist can still recruit via the WWW?

Jack & Walter would rather you use another comparison because your shtick is getting old.
download.jpg
 
The Court is supposed to be above political influence and should rely only on the Constitution, precedent, and good judgment. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about here.

An 8-0 or 9-0 decision usually means that there is very little if anything in their decision to argue against legally.

not sure where you thought I was complaining. I did say I agreed with the decision. Just brought it up for discussion.
 
The Court is supposed to be above political influence and should rely only on the Constitution, precedent, and good judgment. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about here.

An 8-0 or 9-0 decision usually means that there is very little if anything in their decision to argue against legally.

Pretty sure the OP was applauding the decision in light of all the 5-4 and 4-4 decisions that have plagued the court recently
 
not sure where you thought I was complaining. I did say I agreed with the decision. Just brought it up for discussion.

Pretty sure the OP was applauding the decision in light of all the 5-4 and 4-4 decisions that have plagued the court recently

In post #2, I clearly highlighted a complaining phrase of the OP. Now, check out what I said earlier in light of that.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.

The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.

U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional

Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.

Is this gonna be the new nigger? Only Asians can call each other slants or can I start doing it without fear of being labeled something bad?
 
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a law forbidding official registration of offensive trademarks unconstitutionally limits free speech in a case involving a band called The Slants, an outcome the government has said could lead to a proliferation of racial slurs as sanctioned trademarks.

The court ruled 8-0 in favor of Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American dance rock band The Slants, which had been denied a trademark because the government deemed the name disparaging to people of Asian descent. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court.

U.S. top court says law banning disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional

Interesting given the sensitivity and PC nature public discourse these days.
I agree with the ruling. its a bit silly that the trademark was denied given that the band is an all Asian band.

A proper decision. Love the fact that it was unanimous. Hopefully that will thwart future attempts. At least for awhile.
 
In post #2, I clearly highlighted a complaining phrase of the OP. Now, check out what I said earlier in light of that.

Well you perceived it as a complaint I guess. But it was not.
 
Is this gonna be the new nigger? Only Asians can call each other slants or can I start doing it without fear of being labeled something bad?

I think you know the answer to that.
 
Is this gonna be the new nigger? Only Asians can call each other slants or can I start doing it without fear of being labeled something bad?

We are all conditioned to consider that as offensive. However, there is a good point involved. If we are going to "outlaw" a word, is it not racist to only outlaw it for some people?
 
We are all conditioned to consider that as offensive. However, there is a good point involved. If we are going to "outlaw" a word, is it not racist to only outlaw it for some people?

That was my point... it is a reverse racism kind of warped thinking.
 
Back
Top Bottom