US Supreme Court: ?Hate speech? can be lawful speech under the First Amendment

[Barry-xlovecam]

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

[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]

[8pt-buck]

Please watch the behavioral and racial actions between races.

[escorpio]

Your right to free speech should end where my feelings begin.

[oppoten]

[Bladewire]

Que the GFY non industry hate troll nics who use hate to destroy GFY on a daily basis, thread by thread, post by post.

[Barry-xlovecam]

[oppoten]

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

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

Regardless of your views this is a victory for free speech. Just because it's legal to do something doesn't mean people will do it, the same follows suit for things that are illegal. Only a snowflake would think this decision is bad. This is how rights get taken away: snow flakes complain, the gov concedes to only attacking fringe speech. They do, get away with it, because snow flakes love the nanny state. However, once they move chains against free speech, that's it. They will never stop pruning the branches. This is where open minded liberal cucks fall victim, and the closes minded conservative too. Government is like the police. The police are not your friends.

[Barry-xlovecam]

This is a narrow decision about government free speech and private free speech differences -- I thought that was pretty clear from that quote from that decision.

Quit your wining like a little girl -- it is not becoming at all.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by 8pt-buck

Please watch the behavioral and racial actions between races.

Proves Racism isn't exclusively a white problem.

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Proves Racism isn't exclusively a white problem.

Indeed Paul. It will literally take something transmundane like the discovery of intelligent life on other worlds, or, maybe even first contact, for their to be racial harmony. Mankind is too short sighted to work this out on its own.
Also, another thing I've noticed, is a large number of black people aren't looking for equality: they are looking to get even. It's really unfortunate and I blame the MSM for trying to convince people that we are further along as a species than we really are. This unattainable archetype they push as normal on people. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him swim on his back.

[shiraz9944]

[QUOTE=Barry-xlovecam;21843061]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.



Good, speech should be allowed in any aspect, hate or not. If you think otherwise sorry, you can go back to a nation that won't let anyone hurt your feelings You can insult someone all day long if you want, just don't incite a riot. I can't believe you think it's a bad thing? Where are you from? You want someone saying you can't use speec to promote your camgirls anymore because it hurts the feelings of some religious nuts? I bet you'd be all up in arms over that. That's the difference between you/bladewire and others here. They don't call you alt left, snowflakes, or commie bastards when you spout off your ideas. As soon as another person does you insult the hell out of them, call them fake nics, and trolls LOL. Such a fucking hypocrite it makes me sick.........but I won't complain for you to be banned because that is your right. See that difference there?

[Major (Tom)]

[QUOTE=shiraz9944;21843715]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

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.



Good, speech should be allowed in any aspect, hate or not. If you think otherwise sorry, you can go back to a nation that won't let anyone hurt your feelings You can insult someone all day long if you want, just don't incite a riot. I can't believe you think it's a bad thing? Where are you from? You want someone saying you can't use speec to promote your camgirls anymore because it hurts the feelings of some religious nuts? I bet you'd be all up in arms over that. That's the difference between you/bladewire and others here. They don't call you alt left, snowflakes, or commie bastards when you spout off your ideas. As soon as another person does you insult the hell out of them, call them fake nics, and trolls LOL. Such a fucking hypocrite it makes me sick.........but I won't complain for you to be banned because that is your right. See that difference there?

I'll admit it's a cluster fuck in politics and nothing seems to be going right. This is my first time since my teens that I am a card carrying repub. been a dem most of my life. Idenity politics drove me away. I could give a shit about some kid who doesn't even have pubes telling me he is a she and I should it a zir or pixie. Fuck that. Shit went south around the time of "don't ask don't tell."
The dems usually can be the voice of reason in times like these. They are anything but. I'm so disghusted by their behavior that I wouldn't even vote for god the father if he were running on the dem ticket. I'm hoping the masses will ditch both parties and finally start a legit 3rd party that is sane and in the middle. Too much shit going on to worry about immigrants. Too much shit to worry about pro nouns. Moratorium on all that. We need to fix the cracks in the granite before letting jonathan & boid redecorate the interior with flamboyance whilst giving each other pumpkin spice latte enemas.

[Barry-xlovecam]

look at all the troils troll ... click bait for shit-bags

[J. Falcon]

[NewNick]

[mineistaken]

Congrats to tolerant libsters. Is wishing death also allowed?

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

look at all the troils troll ... click bait for shit-bags

Barry, if I were trolling you, you'd know it. I am not trolling you

[AndyA]

All Lives Matter

what a douche....


Ive seen it done

[baddog]

And now the Washington Redskins can keep their mascot.

[J. Falcon]

Originally Posted by baddog

And now the Washington Redskins can keep their mascot.

Name, Logo, Fight Song

No mascot.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Washington Redskins has been a registered trademark since 1973. This ruling was about disparaging names refused trademark registration by the USPTO and government censorship of private and commercial speech rights -- take a fucking brain pill or something ...

The post title was a paraphrasing of a click bait media headline to trigger stupidity. Apparently it worked.

[VRPdommy]

Free speech is just that, until you infringe on the rights of others.

The Supreme Court's decision was really only a matter of if the offensive language would be considered in the case of a Trademark.
I can see additional issues down the road with this, but not if the trademark is of a 'real' product. Many are vaporware and should be ended. While they are hard to defend, they will stay on the books till a challenge to it.
Most do not truly understand how and why the trademark system works and so understand the implications.

But I also see some deviant folks wanting to re-write the TM laws and that scares me the most.

But don't make this free speech case out to be more than it is. It will not serve the public's best interest. No matter your political affiliation.
This is really a test of 'Trademark Laws' not free speech.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

...
This is really a test of 'Trademark Laws' not free speech.

Congrats -- you grasp the narrowness of the ruling in context

I did too ;=P I just wanted to rattle some cages around here.

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

Free speech is just that, until you infringe on the rights of others.

The Supreme Court's decision was really only a matter of if the offensive language would be considered in the case of a Trademark.
I can see additional issues down the road with this, but not if the trademark is of a 'real' product. Many are vaporware and should be ended. While they are hard to defend, they will stay on the books till a challenge to it.
Most do not truly understand how and why the trademark system works and so understand the implications.

But I also see some deviant folks wanting to re-write the TM laws and that scares me the most.

But don't make this free speech case out to be more than it is. It will not serve the public's best interest. No matter your political affiliation.
This is really a test of 'Trademark Laws' not free speech.

I have a trademark for ghettogaggers go figure

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Congrats -- you grasp the narrowness of the ruling in context

I did too ;=P I just wanted to rattle some cages around here.

Ohh barry. You and bladewire need to go on vaca together and let him fit you for a banana hammock so you look stellar on the beach. Crocket can have both your cocks in a harness and have you and bladey in tow. If that makes me gay I do not care! Because if you were a chick I'd feel the same way!

[Major (Tom)]

I think dykes on bikes went to the supreme court

[Barry-xlovecam]

blah blah blah hahaha fuck you^^^

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

blah blah blah hahaha fuck you^^^

The thing about you, bladey and mark prince, in all honesty, I like you guys. Regardless of our political differences. I just like breaking y'all balls.

[Barry-xlovecam]

hahahaha 8