First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Supreme Court rules banning of offensive names and trademarks unconstitutional
Banned
12111 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 6/19/17
I'm curious to read more about this ruling and if it protects speech that incites violence.
qwueri 
21589 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17

octorockandroll wrote:

I'm curious to read more about this ruling and if it protects speech that incites violence.


As far as I'm aware it's just a ruling on the inability of the trademark office to limit what names they approve based on offensiveness.
22423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/19/17

serifsansserif wrote:


runec wrote:

On one hand, good.

On the other hand, I can see some idiot missing the nuance in the ruling and go full KKK for his new brake & muffler shop.



Unfortunately, preserving the RIGHT to be able to do that is more important than the single action. It could be any group vocalizing dissent, and the ABILITY to do so is of the utmost importance to preserve.

The KKK can march down the street and be protected by the police in doing such (in as much as they do not inflict violence or infringe upon the right of expression to others), and the next week we could hold a celebration of black history in equal regard.

The bigger problem is that there are less and less avenues for the ability to freely express ones self due to the pursuit of monetization.

Social media is constantly censoring for the sake of monetization. Corporate media companies are taking sides and censoring their opposing ideas under the guise that it is ok to deny service to those that oppose common opinion. It's no different that refusing to bake a gay couple a cake, or denying black people service inside a restaurant.

As a moderate classical liberal, even hate groups deserve their freedom of speech, lest we become the intolerant monsters we fear.




Classical liberals are the best liberals!
22423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/21/17

octorockandroll wrote:

I'm curious to read more about this ruling and if it protects speech that incites violence.


Saying you support Trump incites violence. Yes it protects it.

Unless you are talking about conspiracy to commit acts of violence which is a different thing all together.
10729 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Online
Posted 6/19/17

Rujikin wrote:



Classical liberals are the best liberals!





Thank you.
Banned
12111 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/19/17

Rujikin wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

I'm curious to read more about this ruling and if it protects speech that incites violence.


Saying you support Trump incites violence. Yes it protects it.

Unless you are talking about conspiracy to commit acts of violence which is a different thing all together.


You should probably know what I am talking about since you provided a hypothetical example earlier


Rujikin wrote:
"hanging niggers muffler shop"


I'm just saying it's obvious there should be consequence if you try to elicit murder.
22423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/21/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

I'm curious to read more about this ruling and if it protects speech that incites violence.


Saying you support Trump incites violence. Yes it protects it.

Unless you are talking about conspiracy to commit acts of violence which is a different thing all together.


You should probably know what I am talking about since you provided a hypothetical example earlier


Rujikin wrote:
"hanging niggers muffler shop"


I'm just saying it's obvious there should be consequence if you try to elicit murder.


A shop name isn't committing conspiracy to commit murder. That's a name. Kind of like "Deadmans bar".
Banned
12111 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/21/17

Rujikin wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

You should probably know what I am talking about since you provided a hypothetical example earlier


Rujikin wrote:
"hanging niggers muffler shop"


I'm just saying it's obvious there should be consequence if you try to elicit murder.


A shop name isn't committing conspiracy to commit murder. That's a name. Kind of like "Deadmans bar".


Do you even read these things before you post them or do you seriously not know what "inciting violence" means?
22423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/21/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

You should probably know what I am talking about since you provided a hypothetical example earlier


Rujikin wrote:
"hanging niggers muffler shop"


I'm just saying it's obvious there should be consequence if you try to elicit murder.


A shop name isn't committing conspiracy to commit murder. That's a name. Kind of like "Deadmans bar".


Do you even read these things before you post them or do you seriously not know what "inciting violence" means?


A store name is not inciting violence. It's a label for a store.
Banned
12111 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/21/17

Rujikin wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


I'm just saying it's obvious there should be consequence if you try to elicit murder.


A shop name isn't committing conspiracy to commit murder. That's a name. Kind of like "Deadmans bar".


Do you even read these things before you post them or do you seriously not know what "inciting violence" means?

A store name is not inciting violence. It's a label for a store.

So it's the latter then? Good to know?
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/21/17

octorockandroll wrote:



or do you seriously not know what "inciting violence" means?



Do you?
His example wasn't inciting violence. Here's some reading on the subject:
http://freespeechdebate.com/case/the-brandenburg-test-for-incitement-to-violence/


“Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action


In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

The two legal prongs that constitute incitement of imminent lawless action is as follows:

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[2]
3230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17
Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled that the government shouldn't have the right to use their own personal subjective opinions as to what should and should not be allowed to be trademarked and such.

Which is to say, the words and speech involved should be totally separate from legal considerations with that sort of thing.

This is good, and I'm glad to hear the Supreme Court actually upholding our constitution as they are meant to do. Freedom of speech in this country is "clearly" meant to protect "all" speech and free expression, not just what people decide is "inoffensive" at the time. Censoring what people can name things is a blatant violation of their freedom of speech and expression, and whether or not you are offended by a particular name is totally irrelevant.

In an ideal world people would self-police themselves and try to pick names and such that aren't knowingly offensive to so many people, but at the end of the day, that's their decision to make. The government should have no part in telling people what speech counts as "offensive" or "acceptable" in public discourse, based solely on how offended a portion of the population may happen to be.
10729 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Online
Posted 6/19/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:



or do you seriously not know what "inciting violence" means?



Do you?
His example wasn't inciting violence. Here's some reading on the subject:
http://freespeechdebate.com/case/the-brandenburg-test-for-incitement-to-violence/


“Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action


In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

The two legal prongs that constitute incitement of imminent lawless action is as follows:

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[2]


I love it when people understand the law...
11255 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / AH / Shipyard
Offline
Posted 6/19/17
Good
Banned
12111 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/19/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:



or do you seriously not know what "inciting violence" means?



Do you?
His example wasn't inciting violence. Here's some reading on the subject:
http://freespeechdebate.com/case/the-brandenburg-test-for-incitement-to-violence/


“Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action


In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time,"[1] and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.

The two legal prongs that constitute incitement of imminent lawless action is as follows:

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.[2]


I see.

Thank you for actually understanding my question and answering it instead of pretending advocacy of law violation wasn't advocacy of law violation.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.