So, hate away at the people that are not your race, religion or political persuasion.
Of course, it's still unlawful to directly instigate riots or crimes -- keep that in mind.
However, the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed your right to make toxic posts -- trolls rejoice.
Actually, this case was about the band "The Slants" being denied a trademark by the US Patent Office. Disparagement of a person (Disparagement is the act of speaking about someone in a negative or belittling way). These Asian guys wanted that trademark -- same thing would apply to a band that wanted to name themselves the queers, cunts, kikes, spics or n-----rs. This is a great day for America we can legally insult ourselves or others with a hate trademark.
from the decision;
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1293_1o13.pdf
Quote:
[J]USTICE KENNEDY, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SO-TOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, agreed that 15 U.S.C. §1052
(a) constitutes viewpoint discrimination, concluding: (a) With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828?829.
The test for viewpoint discrimination is whether?within the relevant subject category?the government has singled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed. Here, the disparagement clause identifies the relevant subject as ?persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,? §1052(a); and within that category, an applicant may register a positive or benign mark but not a derogatory one.
The law thus reflects the Government?s disapproval of a subset of messages it finds offensive, the essence of viewpoint discrimination.
The Government?s arguments in defense of the statute are unpersuasive. Pp. 2?5.(b)
Regardless of whether trademarks are commercial speech, the viewpoint based discrimination here necessarily invokes heightened scrutiny. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U. S. 552, 566.
To the extent trademarks qualify as commercial speech, they are an example of why that category does not serve as a blanket exemption from the First Amendment?s requirement of viewpoint neutrality.
In the realm of trademarks, the metaphorical marketplace of ideas becomes a tangible, powerful reality. To permit viewpoint discrimination in this context is to permit Government censorship. Pp. 5?7. ... [formatting added for readability]
|
