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
Supreme Court Slant
- themanintheseersuckersuit
- Posts: 7619
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Supreme Court Slant
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.
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.
- silverscreenselect
- Posts: 23179
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court Slant
Old news: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
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=54129
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
-
- Posts: 1988
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:24 pm
- Location: The Deep South
Re: Supreme Court Slant
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
Time meant nothing and never would again
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 21626
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: Supreme Court Slant
It came out yesterday, but sss's point is that he posted about it roughly 6 hours before suitguy did. --Boblilclyde54 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?
"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
- themanintheseersuckersuit
- Posts: 7619
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Supreme Court Slant
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.
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.
- eyégor
- ???????
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:26 am
- Location: Trollsberg
Re: Supreme Court Slant
It was on Law.com yesterday