Landmark SCOTUS Case Finds “Disparaging” Trademarks Are Protected


A major SCOTUS case found for free speech today, securing our rights.

The winning petitioners were a band known as “The Slants,” a group of Asian-Americans, who chose the name to neutralize what is often thought of as an insult.

The case of the offensive trademark is a landmark case, not because it allows the Redskins to get their trademark back or The Slants to keep their name though that is a good thing, but because it tells us what we all know — offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment.

The argument to destroy free speech

The government argued that trademarks are not private speech, but rather government speech. They claimed that a trademark represents a granting of intellectual property rights by the United States.

Government speech?

Alito’s argument put that to bed. Justice Alito asked if that means the government could refuse to recognize an author’s copyright to his book if it found his views offensive?

Alito wrote the opinion for himself, Roberts, Thomas, and Breyer. “We have said time and again that ‘the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.’”

Alito called it “viewpoint discrimination in the broad sense.”

“Giving offense is a viewpoint”, he wrote.

Kennedy, writing for himself, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, agreed with Alito’s argument.

To see the leftists on the court agree with this decision is encouraging.

It was an issue during the Obama regime

Barack Obama pushed political correctness and controlled speech from the first days he entered office.

The Washington Redskins had their trademark taken from them illegally. The Redskins are winners now.

Sen. Harry Reid praised the U.S. District Court ruling denying future trademark protection for the Washington Redskins logo. Meanwhile other far more offensive trademarks are not banned. They’ve ignored teams with names like Redskinettes, Sassy Bitch, and The Hymies.

Barack Obama issued a challenge to a sneaker company to abandon the Redskins name. He indirectly bullied the team and anyone who used an Indian mascot.

He spoke at the White House Tribal Nations Conference in 2015 and blasted the use of Indian-themed sports mascots.

The ten-President praised Adidas for allegedly offering to work with sports teams to come up with new mascots.

Adidas announced the campaign in coordination with its participation in the White House Tribal Nations Conference.

Ninety percent of tribal leaders took no offense to Indian mascots but that didn’t matter to the control freak Barack Obama.

The former president called on Adidas specifically to work with the Washington Redskins to change their name.

He was a PC president who didn’t understand free speech. For a constitutional lawyer, that is quite amazing.

Many on the left, not only Obama, would like to decide what we are allowed to say and even think.

Recently, a young woman named Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for sending texts telling her suicidal boyfriend to kill himself. While she is a despicable person, she didn’t kill him. He killed himself. The left is criminalizing texting and free speech.

What won’t they ban? Who are they to decide what we can say?

This is part of the creeping totalitarianism in our society which travels many roads. Most insidious is political correctness.

Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.

The left appears to want to control what we eat, drink, smoke, watch, say and even think.




0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 years ago

Obama may be a “constitutional lawyer” but his aim is not to uphold but to destroy.

Have you noticed that it is lawyers that have the most trouble understanding the simple language of the US Constitution?

Flotmorton P. Gildersleeve
Flotmorton P. Gildersleeve
6 years ago
Reply to  Ignominious

I had a good constitutional law Professor in Law school but some others who went to Haaaarvard Law might have had “Pocahontas” the psychopathic liar for a con law professor, eh?? Maybe she taught Osama Obama Sharia law instead of Constitutional Law……………………..

Flotmorton P. Gildersleeve
Flotmorton P. Gildersleeve
6 years ago
Reply to  Ignominious

Mama don’t take my kodachrome away ,Mama don’t take my Redskins away…….Hoorah for the “Big Nine”, aka “The Supremes” they know what con law is………………………………… Now they can renew Pocahontas’ contract as the mascot………………………….

Flotmorton P. Gildersleeve
Flotmorton P. Gildersleeve
6 years ago

Unfortunately, if you convince someone to kill someone, you may be held as a co-conspirator in whatever murder occurs. It is standard criminal procedure, been around for quite sometime. However, there is some legal distinction when 1,000 people want the Redskins to win and three persons hearing this opinion go out and gamble their life’s savings on the game win. On Sunday, the Skins lose in the 4th quarter by a field goal.
How many of the 1,000 people are responsible for the loss of the fortunes of the three people?
Needless to say when certain people publicly promote the killing of someone, then the only remedy is the killing of the persons who exhoredt the killing…. How can anyone complain if they widely promote the killing of someone and by sheer misconstruence, they themselves are killed instead?? How can the exhorters or their survivors claim foul?
By the same token all of these sleazy Democratic politicians and “Hollywood studs and molls” must risk the effects of their own words, cuz it’s like insulting some kid about his grandmother; You are gong to get at least a bloody nose, if not more.

6 years ago

I shouldn’t be astonished at some “lawyers” arguments in cases but again we have stupidity on display.

“The government argued that trademarks are not private speech, but rather government speech.”

Then we should conclude when a marriage license is given that couple is “married to the Government”. It brings me to wonder what is taught in Law Schools these days.

I would assume the conviction of manslaughter because of texting will make it to the Supreme Court. I fully expect it to be overturned in the Appellate and then be appealed. But given the current state of Appellate Courts that is not a given.

In the end if this IS upheld then a multitude of cases should be brought against all those whose rhetoric inspired the likes of the Scalise shooter, including all those who literally called for similar actions. That particular Court has opened a Pandora’s box that may not be able to be closed.