Major victory for free speech in Slants case

[satimy]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/politi...ins/index.html

Alito who is arguably the most right wing justice with the majority opinion. The decision was 8-0, glad to see that both ends of the political spectrum are affirming such a fundamental American value

[Garnier Fructis]

Seems fine to me.

[satimy]

Seems fine to me.

Big implications for yeh Washington redskins ordeal

[Deleted]

Seems like a very good decision.

[Heladys]

Actually does seem like a sensible decision

[Mayhem]

@Slant explain yourself!

[Deleted]

Great ruling.

[Gestopft]

Damn those liberal activist jud...oh wait. It's almost like reasonable people of all stripes agree on free speech.

Big implications for yeh Washington redskins ordeal

In the sense that they should get to have their trademark restored, but this ruling probably wouldn't protect them if the NFL decides to apply pressure of its own.

[Endus]

It's interesting that the defense has shifted from "'Redskins' isn't a slur" to "It's a slur, but we should legally be able to trademark it".

I mean, I agree with the latter; this is the kind of thing that should be handled via public outcry and the market, not the courts. But it's a telling admission regardless.

[Freighter]

Redskins is a slur? Slur for what? People who have spent too much time in the sun and look like lobsters due to sun burn?

[Edge-]

Redskins is a slur? Slur for what? People who have spent too much time in the sun and look like lobsters due to sun burn?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

Google, yo.

[satimy]

It's interesting that the defense has shifted from "'Redskins' isn't a slur" to "It's a slur, but we should legally be able to trademark it".

I mean, I agree with the latter; this is the kind of thing that should be handled via public outcry and the market, not the courts. But it's a telling admission regardless.

The ruling was that the law couldn't restrict speech just because it offended someone. Unless you standard of a slur is that it offends someone than in no way does this affirm anything about the term redskin

[Endus]

The ruling was that the law couldn't restrict speech just because it offended someone. Unless you standard of a slur is that it offends someone than in no way does this affirm anything about the term redskin

It tacitly admits that it's a slur.

If it weren't, the law wouldn't have covered it in the first place. They weren't arguing that their trademark wasn't offensive, they were arguing that they should get to use it anyway.

[Resurgo]

My perspective might be different.

I'm chinese. I grew up in Queens, NY. I saw every possible race and combination before I was 10. As kids, we literally called each other every possible slur you could come up with.

So today, I honestly don't get why people get so heated and offended. Those slurs mean nothing to me. You could call me a chink to my face and I honestly just don't care... 'yeah, I am, so what? Got something better?"

Words only give power if you allow them to.

For that group to want to use the word(s) "The Slants", I thought it was awesome, hilarious even. I'd do the same if I were in their position. To allow others power over your emotions because of some innocuous use of a word? Just seems childish to me.

[Alfador]

It's interesting that the defense has shifted from "'Redskins' isn't a slur" to "It's a slur, but we should legally be able to trademark it".

I mean, I agree with the latter; this is the kind of thing that should be handled via public outcry and the market, not the courts. But it's a telling admission regardless.

No such shift has happened, and even if it did it wouldn't be all that interesting. Challenging the constitutionality of a law has dick to do with whether or not you're actually in violation of said law.

It tacitly admits that it's a slur.

If it weren't, the law wouldn't have covered it in the first place. They weren't arguing that their trademark wasn't offensive, they were arguing that they should get to use it anyway.

I'm inclined to disagree. There are two separate questions when you assess a law against a set circumstance. The obvious one is of course, does this thing violate the law as written? If you have a law banning slurs, or anything else like that, does the material qualify?

The other part, that really takes a higher priority, is the law even legal? You can absolutely challenge a law on this basis alone, and doing so doesn't amount to any real stipulation on the part of whether the circumstance in question actually violates the law. If I arrested tomorrow for shouting obscenities on the sidewalk. I can challenge the legality of a law banning obscenities without ever taking a position on whether or not I did indeed shout obscenities on the sidewalk and thus violate the law as written.

I will insist quite firmly that Redskin is in fact a slur, as is "the slants" (though perhaps bore benign in its use in this particular case) and particularly unpleasant one at that, but I think this was the right decision by a long shot and I have to say I don't see the court deciding whether or not the USPTO can veto a slur as a trademark actually functions as tacitly or explicitly affirming that it is a slur in the first place because it's not relevant to the decision. The trademark in question could have been gorillahats and it wouldn't have made a difference.

[satimy]

It tacitly admits that it's a slur.

If it weren't, the law wouldn't have covered it in the first place. They weren't arguing that their trademark wasn't offensive, they were arguing that they should get to use it anyway.

The band wasn't the redskins it was the slants. This ruling means that it's irrelevant if redskin is considered a slur, I don't see how that proclaims redskin to be a slur.

[Alfador]

My perspective might be different.

I'm chinese. I grew up in Queens, NY. I saw every possible race and combination before I was 10. As kids, we literally called each other every possible slur you could come up with.

So today, I honestly don't get why people get so heated and offended. Those slurs mean nothing to me. You could call me a chink to my face and I honestly just don't care... 'yeah, I am, so what? Got something better?"

Words only give power if you allow them to.

For that group to want to use the word(s) "The Slants", I thought it was awesome, hilarious even. I'd do the same if I were in their position. To allow others power over your emotions because of some innocuous use of a word? Just seems childish to me.

Philosophically, I agree with you. In a perfect world no slur or hateful remark would have any power because they would all be denied. However that's not the case. It may hold no power on your but that may not be true for someone who still has memories of their family losing everything going to an internment camp, or who has directly experienced anything ranging from violence to a lost job on the basis of their racial appearance.

[zenkai]

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words...I'LL SUE!

[Alfador]

The band wasn't the redskins it was the slants. This ruling means that it's irrelevant if redskin is considered a slur, I don't see how that proclaims redskin to be a slur.

I think the greater point here is even if it was about the Redskins, the simple fact of it is, challenging the legality of a law does not require anyone, the court or the petitioner, to make a decision or a statement on whether or not the law was even broken. If I get taken to court for something tomorrow, I can petition the court that the law I'm being prosecuted under is invalid regardless of my position or the court's determination on whether or not I actually even broke the law as it's written.

[Slant]

@Slant explain yourself!

The ruling speaks for itself. I am free!