Supreme Court Slant

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Supreme Court Slant

#1 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:15 pm

Today the US Supreme Court held that the patent and trademark office could not refuse a trademark because it believes the trademark was offensive or a slur. The Slants won. Redskin haters hardest hit.
There is no hate speech exception to the 1st Amendment.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23179
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court Slant

#2 Post by silverscreenselect » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:02 pm

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Today the US Supreme Court held that the patent and trademark office could not refuse a trademark because it believes the trademark was offensive or a slur. The Slants won. Redskin haters hardest hit.
There is no hate speech exception to the 1st Amendment.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_1o13.pdf
Old news:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=54129
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

lilclyde54
Posts: 1988
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: The Deep South

Re: Supreme Court Slant

#3 Post by lilclyde54 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:49 pm

I have no idea when this s ruling came out but if it is truly "old news", why has ESPN been running it on their crawlers all day?
I felt the change

Time meant nothing and never would again

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Supreme Court Slant

#4 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:37 am

lilclyde54 wrote:I have no idea when this s ruling came out but if it is truly "old news", why has ESPN been running it on their crawlers all day?
It came out yesterday, but sss's point is that he posted about it roughly 6 hours before suitguy did. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Supreme Court Slant

#5 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:03 am

I wanted to put my on slant on the story. (nah, I just missed SSS's post)
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
eyégor
???????
Posts: 1139
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:26 am
Location: Trollsberg

Re: Supreme Court Slant

#6 Post by eyégor » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:35 am

It was on Law.com yesterday

Post Reply