Obama loses again, Supreme Court rules in favor of "The Slants", likely to benefit Redskins too

[IAMX 3,055]

Rewind to 2015:

Quote

Obama stiff-arms Constitution: Admin lawyers fight ‘Redskins’ trademark

 

Justice Dept. says First Amendment doesn’t apply

 

The Washington Redskins’ name is commercial speech and isn’t the kind of free expression protected by the First Amendment, the Obama administration told a federal court this week in defending a ruling that has stripped the football team of trademark protections.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/24/obama-lawyers-fight-stop-redskins-trademark/

 

 

 

Fast forward to today:

Quote

In a filing Monday, the Justice Department defended the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision last year to strip the team of protections.

 

“Not only do trademarks function only minimally as a vehicle for expression, but trademark registration also involves the necessary participation of the government in approving that registration, which confers relaxed First Amendment review even when combined with the speech of a private party,” the Obama lawyers said.

 

 

Quote

The band, called the Slants, argued that the name doesn't fall under the disparagement provision. 

The Supreme Court upheld an earlier ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the United States Trademark and Patent Office, which sought to prevent the band from trademarking their name.

The case also impacts the Washington Redskins, who had been in a dispute with the Trademark Office over allegations that the team's name was disparaging toward Native Americans. 

"We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion. "It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."

 

The Slants' victory at the Supreme Court on Monday could benefit the Washington Redskins football team's effort to win its trademark dispute.

The Slants' case has served as a proxy war in many ways for the Redskins' case. The Redskins' intention to let the Slants lead block at the high court irked the band and others who simultaneously view the Slants' name as part of a movement to promote Asian-American pride and interpret the Redskins' name as an ethnic slur.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/supreme-court-rules-disparagement-provision-in-trademark-law-violates-first-amendment/article/2626371

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/19/washington-redskins-trademark-case

 

SCOTUS once again upholds freedom that Obama tried to take from Americans. 

Edited June 19, 2017 by IAMX

[IAMX 3,055]

In his opinion for the court,

Justice Samuel Alito rejected arguments that trademarks are government speech, not private speech. Alito also said trademarks are not immune from First Amendment protection as part of a government program or subsidy.

Tam insisted he was not trying to be offensive but wanted to transform a derisive term into a statement of pride. The Redskins also contend their name honors American Indians, but the team has faced decades of legal challenges from Indian groups that say the name is racist.

Despite intense public pressure to change the name, Redskins owner Dan Snyder has refused, saying it "represents honor, respect and pride.''

In the Slants case, government officials argued that the law did not infringe on free speech rights because the band was still free to use the name even without trademark protection. The same is true for the Redskins, but the team did not want to lose the legal protections that go along with a registered trademark. The protections include blocking the sale of counterfeit merchandise and working to pursue a brand development strategy.

 

A federal appeals court had sided with the Slants in 2015, saying First Amendment protects "even hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities.''

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19678652/supreme-court-gives-washington-redskins-boost-name-fight

 

Also a huge loss for the left who've been wanting the Redskins name forcefully changed. 

 

[Dashinka 24,109]

I doubt this will be considered a win for free speech as it doesn't fit the narrative of the progressive left.

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I doubt this will be considered a win for free speech as it doesn't fit the narrative of the progressive left.

 

 

Oh, bummer.

[Dashinka 24,109]

I hadn't realized that this was an 8-0 decision.  Maybe Free Speech even if it can be considered offensive by some is still protected.

[IAMX 3,055]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I hadn't realized that this was an 8-0 decision

My bad. A pretty huge omission. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I am tired of wining 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I am tired of wining 

SCOTUS unanimously racist against Obama.

Edited June 20, 2017 by IAMX

[Boiler 44,855]

Isnt it racist to be racist against Obama?

 

[Dashinka 24,109]

You know there was another case recently decided (4-2) with Kagan and Sotomayor recusing themselves where the Obama lawyers successfully argued that Ashcroft and Mueller could not be sued by immigrants over detention issues from 9/11.  I wonder if this will shed any light on the whole Trump EO eventual decision.