Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by openasocket on Monday June 19, 2017 @12:57PM
(#14588412)
I don't think it would. The justices are smart people, they know full well the precedent they have set can be used by white supremacists et al. Their decision explicitly affirms that hate speech is not exempt from First Amendment protections.
As an aside, this is why the judicial system is probably my favorite branch of government. Debates in Congress are not real debates; congressman are using them to score political points, not convince the other side of their argument. Same with the executive branch, it's all about re-election which means they have to concern themselves with the optics of their actions. Only in the judicial branch do we at least try to make decisions based on reason and rational argument. It's how we got legal interracial marriage at a time when something like 90% of the population thought it was immoral. The justices don't care about the optics of the case, only the facts, because establishing a precedence means these decisions can have broad consequences.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by CPLX on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:49PM
(#14588845)
> The justices don't care about the optics of the case, only the facts
Well... sort of. In reality they do a complicated and delicate balancing of the optics, practical effects, and ivory tower type rationality. Though I think your point, drawing a contrast, still stands up quite well.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by ErikVandeWater on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:26PM
(#14589660)
Lots of people in this thread are equating smarts to a lack of inherent human bias. I agree that there is a relationship there, but if you read enough cases, you get the feeling they often stretch to get to the conclusion they had (knowingly or unknowingly) predetermined.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by openasocket on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:33PM
(#14589726)
Oh justices are absolutely biased, it's impossible to have a human being who isn't. The point is that the justices have to defend their decision with some sort of rational argument, while congressman simply vote yay or nay on a bill without qualifiers or precedent being set.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by kbutler on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:06PM
(#14588993)
That insulation from politics is the same rationale for monarchy/hereditary positions/equal-representation-in-senate/electoral college.
When we're in the victorious minority, we like insulation from direct majority rule, but when we're in the disgruntled majority, those restrictions on democracy aren't quite as attractive.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by openasocket on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:22PM
(#14589618)
Insulation from politics isn't really why I like the judiciary. It's that their entire basis for influence requires a line of reasoning and rational thought. Having electable judges is to some degree orthogonal to the issue.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by headcanon on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:26PM
(#14588651)
That's a great point. I'm glad as well that we have at least one part of government that is able to keep a head on their shoulders.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by legitster on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:00PM
(#14588438)
The Washington Redskins had already filed an Amicus brief in support of this change.
It seems weird to me that this became a free speech issue; I had always assumed trademarks were not a form of speech, just business protection (similar to a patent).
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by antognini on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:16PM
(#14588578)
The name of your business is indisputably considered speech. By providing trademarks to some business names and not others, the government is providing substantial commercial rewards to certain kinds of speech over others. It might still be a kind of business protection, but the issue is that they must provide that protection without regard to the speech of the applicants.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by ajross on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:02PM
(#14589465)
To be clear: very few people involved in the Redskins naming controversy think they should be prevented from using the name as a matter of law. It's not inconsistent to believe they have a first amendment right to name the team what they want but also that the name is offensive and should be changed (or even that the NFL is within its right to force such a change).
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by bmelton on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:21PM
(#14589609)
Very few "members of the public", maybe, but that doesn't really matter for much when the Patent & Trademark Office is attempting to strip them of their patent protection because they consider it a slur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_trademark_...
That was compounded SCOTUS' rejection of the Redskins appeal, though this opinion should basically resolve the Redskins dispute anyway.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by mlinksva on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:11PM
(#14588542)
Trademarks are a form of censorship.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by unsayable on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:27PM
(#14588655)
South Park had Cartman use the un-trademarkable version of the Redskins to achieve his personal business goals in an excellent season of South Park: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnK-jYzaWtw
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by jhanschoo on Monday June 19, 2017 @09:44PM
(#14591664)
That's quite a claim you just made. By the same reasoning, would you consider copyright censorship as well?
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by bitJericho on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:31PM
(#14588698)
I have no doubt the Redskins could keep their name if they were actually comprised of Native Americans that wanted to call themselves that.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by bmelton on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:22PM
(#14589617)
Well, as this decision effectively strikes down the provision that the PTO was using to deny the Redskins trademark protection, they effectively just won the right regardless.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by votepaunchy on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:48PM
(#14588841)
Then no more Dallas "Cowboys" either.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by bitJericho on Monday June 19, 2017 @08:29PM
(#14591410)
Cowboys and Giants aren't a race. Celtics is not a racial slur.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by Banthum on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:05PM
(#14588982)
And let's not even get into the Boston "Celtics"...
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by dsfyu404ed on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:47PM
(#14589841)
Yeah, the police union will take that one and keep it for themselves faster then you can say donuts in the break room.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by koolba on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:49PM
(#14589365)
And clearly the Giants are the size of mere mortals.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by xraystyle on Monday June 19, 2017 @12:59PM
(#14588423)
I think it's pretty hard to argue that their decision would have been any different regardless of the ethnic makeup of the band.
Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the political views of any of the Supreme Court justices, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that any of them are unintelligent. They're very clearly aware that this ruling sets a precedent that will apply to future trademarks regardless of the background of the applicant, and yet still ruled unanimously in favor of the band.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by Paul-ish on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:00PM
(#14588433)
I don't think you give the supreme court justices enough credit. I think most cases they see are "exemplar" cases, not average cases, as to improve the chances of a favorable ruling. The justices are aware of this fact.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by burkaman on Monday June 19, 2017 @12:48PM
(#14588344)
I think trademarks generally take at least 6 months to go through, so this probably isn't a great avenue for trolling. Also, you could already call yourself whatever you want. It's not that much more impactful to be able to put a little TM next to your group's name.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by natch on Monday June 19, 2017 @12:59PM
(#14588431)
I believe you don't need to register in order to use TM(™), you just use it. Once you've registered, you use ®.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by openasocket on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:00PM
(#14588435)
It could actually be used against racists, right? You could trademark a bunch of offensive terms and then sue alt-right types for trademark infringement whenever they use those terms in print or something. IANAL and only have a basic understanding of trademark law, so I'm probably missing something.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by antognini on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:12PM
(#14588550)
I think you have to actually be using the terms in some bona fide business context for them to be eligible for trademark protection. It's different from patent protection, where you can just sit on a patent without using it.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by icebraining on Monday June 19, 2017 @03:44PM
(#14589825)
You also don't become an "owner" of the word, you just get an exclusive right over its commercial use on a specific sector.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by rayiner on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:00PM
(#14588440)
Probably the same way. Although the petitioners in his case were Asian, it is well known to the Court (being seated in DC) that the same legal issue is also involved in the long-running legal/political dispute over the naming of the Washington Redskins football team.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by TheCoelacanth on Monday June 19, 2017 @08:01PM
(#14591295)
The Redskins also filed an amicus brief in this case, so even if they somehow managed to avoid hearing about it, they would have found out about it from this case.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by emodendroket on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:08PM
(#14588511)
The Redskins thing is hardly a regional issue unknown to the rest of the country (not that I disagree with your point).
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by gozur88 on Monday June 19, 2017 @04:04PM
(#14589972)
>I'm sure some alt-right types will take full advantage of this decision to do what they do best - troll
I see that as a good thing. That kind of trolling works because it points out hypocrisies in the underlying system.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by matt_wulfeck on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:06PM
(#14588996)
Haven't "trolls" always benefited from freedom of speech and a government that takes that right seriously?
If we want a free and open society we need to take the bad with the good.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by ambulancechaser on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:41PM
(#14589290)
well, presumably this ruling restores the Redskins trademark to the football team, and certainly the Justices would know this. since the majority of this organization is not presumably Native American, your question isn't speculative but is directly answered: they hold the the infringement of free speech cannot be justified.
Re:The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name
by microcolonel on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:02PM
(#14588961)
Words are words, people are welcome to be shocked or amused if somebody uses the word slant, cracker, wetback, wap, gook, frog, or paddy. Trolling, joking, or dead serious, no word should be off the table.
I'm sure some alt-right types will take full advantage of this decision to do what they do best - troll