Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

nycbos

(6,034 posts)

1. Not surprising.

Reply to Gothmog (Original post)

Mon Jun 19, 2017, 04:36 PM

Jun 2017

I am not a lawyer but I had the chance to take a con law class in school.

From what I remember the standard was that the only speech that isn't protected is speech that would provoke "imminent lawless action"

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment [View all] Gothmog Jun 2017 OP

Not surprising. nycbos Jun 2017 #1

Do not see a band's name, name not banned but just trademark restricted, as a hate speech case. Fred Sanders Jun 2017 #2

Asian American west coast band lunasun Jun 2017 #3

Using a term ironically is considered very intelligent Not Ruth Jun 2017 #4

Pussy hats symbolizing the Women's March being another great example Not Ruth Jun 2017 #7

Well, that certainly won't help the effort to get rid of Washington DC's football team's catbyte Jun 2017 #5

You are correct and is a completely different issue but will be used to retain that team's foul name lunasun Jun 2017 #8

I'll have to see if the Court made any distinction gratuitous Jun 2017 #6

I don't see the courts putting a racial test on spoech Lee-Lee Jun 2017 #10

My reading of the case is that it's about trademarks and copyrights, not speech gratuitous Jun 2017 #11

It was ruled on free speech grounds Lee-Lee Jun 2017 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author catbyte Jun 2017 #9

Excellent. WinkyDink Jun 2017 #13