First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Supreme Court rules banning of offensive names and trademarks unconstitutional
Posted 6/19/17 , edited 6/21/17

octorockandroll wrote:


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.


You were calling it incitement to violence though. And like he said, its a name not a statement, so I wouldn't call it advocacy of law violation either.
34645 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 6/19/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


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.


You were calling it incitement to violence though. And like he said, its a name not a statement, so I wouldn't call it advocacy of law violation either.

There are some really hardcore bakas on this forum, huh.
21555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/19/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


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.


You were calling it incitement to violence though. And like he said, its a name not a statement, so I wouldn't call it advocacy of law violation either.

There are some really hardcore bakas on this forum, huh.


Yup. There are.
27922 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
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.


Good shit.
51634 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17
Just remember free speech != protected speech. That's the part people forget, you can say what you want, where you want, but there can certainly be consequences. The most used example is yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Yelling "Fire!" is free speech, but once you use it in a manner to cause a riot, IE crowded theater causing a panic as people scramble to escape, then you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.
10271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Abyss
Online
Posted 6/19/17

MadBovine wrote:

Just remember free speech != protected speech. That's the part people forget, you can say what you want, where you want, but there can certainly be consequences. The most used example is yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Yelling "Fire!" is free speech, but once you use it in a manner to cause a riot, IE crowded theater causing a panic as people scramble to escape, then you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.


That requires actual knowledge on the laws though. I remember learning that in PoliSci. It made me chuckle because it is so true. I am sure there are people on the forums who wanted the people who talk about assassinating Trump in jail, but by their own logic, it was freedom of speech. The people who think like that are hypocrites.
27922 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17

MadBovine wrote:

Just remember free speech != protected speech. That's the part people forget, you can say what you want, where you want, but there can certainly be consequences. The most used example is yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Yelling "Fire!" is free speech, but once you use it in a manner to cause a riot, IE crowded theater causing a panic as people scramble to escape, then you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.


What's your point in regards to this ruling in particular? Sounds like warning. People should not be dissuaded from their constitutional right with a "or else".

Yeah yelling "Allahu Akbar!" in the middle of a crowded mall will cause a stampede but if that wasn't the person's intention they shouldn't be punished.

Swatting on the other hand, that's free speech gone too far.
51634 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 6/19/17
My point is simply that Free speech doesn't mean what most people assume it means. I also agree with the SCOtUS ruling, and yes, you could name your business whatever you want (Including the one typed out earlier which I won't repeat) but if you do you can't complain if you face consequences because of it.
47839 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / SC
Offline
Posted 6/19/17
oh good i can continue on with my brand name of "everybody sucks except me"
21555 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 6/19/17

Sogno- wrote:

oh good i can continue on with my brand name of "everybody sucks except me"


I like that name. Make a kick starter and get it going!
11411 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 6/20/17 , edited 6/21/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


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.


You were calling it incitement to violence though. And like he said, its a name not a statement, so I wouldn't call it advocacy of law violation either.


Oh for god's sake names store names can be statements. Even if a store is called Joe's Diner that is still stating something. Namely that the establishment is a diner and that it belongs to someone named Joe. The two are not even remotely mutually exclusive. And yeah, the example he gave encouraged violent and unlawful behaviour. How do you not get this?
Posted 6/20/17 , edited 6/21/17

octorockandroll wrote:
. And yeah, the example he gave encouraged violent and unlawful behaviour. How do you not get this?


So does this extend to every perceived "violent" or grotesque name for anything? Like books and games? Is merely saying the name 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' advocating unlawful behavior? How about Killing Floor? Manhunt? What about the content of said games and books? Stephen King writes about some nasty shit like child rape and murder, what about that?
Don't have to answer, just trying to say you're wrong.
11411 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 6/20/17 , edited 6/21/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:
. And yeah, the example he gave encouraged violent and unlawful behaviour. How do you not get this?


So does this extend to every perceived "violent" or grotesque name for anything? Like books and games? Is merely saying the name 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' advocating unlawful behavior? How about Killing Floor? Manhunt? What about the content of said games and books? Stephen King writes about some nasty shit like child rape and murder, what about that?
Don't have to answer, just trying to say you're wrong.


Are you seriously comparing a store telling you to "hang niggers" to fictional characters killing other fictional characters in fiction? I mean I knew you were desperate to be a contrarian before but damn.
Posted 6/20/17 , edited 6/21/17

octorockandroll wrote:



Are you seriously comparing a store telling you to "hang niggers" to fictional characters killing other fictional characters in fiction? I mean I knew you were desperate to be a contrarian before but damn.


Since when does the name of a store imply they are ordering you to do it? You would have a leg to stand on if it was "I want you to Hang N******" instead of what it was.

Like I said, does the video game name 'Grand Theft Auto' advocate grand theft auto? Does the name Manhunt advocate the hunting of man?
11411 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Online
Posted 6/20/17 , edited 6/21/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:



Are you seriously comparing a store telling you to "hang niggers" to fictional characters killing other fictional characters in fiction? I mean I knew you were desperate to be a contrarian before but damn.


Since when does the name of a store imply they are ordering you to do it? You would have a leg to stand on if it was "I want you to Hang N******" instead of what it was.

Like I said, does the video game name 'Grand Theft Auto' advocate grand theft auto? Does the name Manhunt advocate the hunting of man?


Oh right because once again, the name of a fictional game which describes what happens in said fiction is the same as the name of an establishment.
Posted 6/20/17 , edited 6/21/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Oh right because once again, the name of a fictional game which describes what happens in said fiction is the same as the name of an establishment.


So only names you personally find morally reprehensible count as 'advocating unlawful acts', got it.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.