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

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)

12. It was ruled on free speech grounds

Reply to gratuitous (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 19, 2017, 05:20 PM

Jun 2017

So the broader application will be to all speech.

They ruled that the government refusing to grant a trademark because they deemed the trademark was offensive to be an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.

That precedent will work it's way into most other forms of expression and how the government can regulate them.

I am curious to see if someone will sue a state for refusing to issue an "offensive" vanity license plate now.

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