There is no "hate" speech exception to the First Amendment. In a failed attempt to go after the Redskins' trademarks, the former Con Law Professor lost bigly and will be recorded by history as the most reversed President in over a century.
The Court has now said that not only do you have a right to free speech, but you now have a right to have the government quiet the crowd down for you.
The Court mixes, once again, issues of rights (restrictions on government power, like free speech) and government provided benefits & powers (positive uses of government power, like trademarks, to stop free speech). [The reason I think this is a turning point is that although the (usually liberal) justices have toyed with treating the use of government power as a right, I'm not sure they have been unanimous in doing so.]
Rights: Before the decision, the band in question could always call themselves the Slants if they want to do so. The issue before the Court was not whether they could call themselves that name, and put that word on their posters and t-shirts. That was a given, and not disputed.
Government Power: The issue before the Court was actually whether the band could use the power of government (through trademark law) to prevent other people from using the word "Slants" on their t-shirts., etc. That is not a classic free speech issue. It's kind of the opposite: when can speech be restricted? The answer, according to the court, is that speech can be restricted (on constitutional free speech grounds, no less) in all trademark uses, whether those uses are disparaging or not. Not only that, but the Constitution requires this restriction of free speech...which is the most incredible part of the case.
I'm not saying I dislike the outcome. You can argue that the law should not have been passed. I just think the Court is misusing the Constitution, creating a "right" not only where there is no such historical right enumerated or traditionally understood, but also where it is totally inappropriate to create such a right.
I think it comes down to the fact that the Court didn't want the Congress to pick trademark winners and trademark losers. I get that. And, I see potential for abuses of that. But, I just don't see how that is a Constitutional issue. The answer for that is to elect a new Congress. But, if the past 8 years have proven anything to me, it is that the Constitution is now whatever we say it is.
For now... by 8 to nil, the SC has ruled that just because speech might offend some "group," does not mean that the government can repress it. After all, there may well be uncomfortable truths that need to see the light of day for us to advance.
Offensive speech can now be suppressed through trademark law.
Uncomfortable truths were always allowed "to see the light of day" before the case (except by liberals on campuses). The KKK can call themselves the KKK; they don't need a trademark to do that. The plaintiff was allowed to call themselves "The Slants" or use "Slants" on t-shirts, etc. The uncomfortable truth was seeing the light of day, as you say. But, the band wanted to stop other people from using that word for those purposes, so they filed for a trademark.
The issue before the court was whether one person could have a government endorsed monopoly on an "uncomfortable truth" in order to market a product or service.
After this decision, if you start using the word "slants" in the field of stage performances or music, the band can sue you to stop you. If you use the word to market t-shirts, you can also be sued. That's why the link to the professor I quoted is "Only I can disparage you!"...if anyone else uses that disparagement, they may be sued, and the government (through civil enforcement) will shut them down. This is an anti-free speech decision, to my mind.
(no message)
You are really a piece of work.
law as it and the Constitution have been rendered meaningless.
(no message)
(no message)
Matal v Tam: Only I Can Disparage You!
"[T]the court’s logic is largely incomprehensible."
He makes a great point I hadn't thought of, but which is obvious now that he mentions it: "Although not at issue here, disparaging marks will likely be somewhat more difficult to enforce based upon the greater expressive content of the speech."
Link: Matal v Tam: Only I Can Disparage You!
(no message)
It means that the truth cannot be politically repressed just because it happens to offend an outraged segment of society. 8-0 demonstrates that every judge on the court recognized that revelation of the truth is critical to the continued evolution of our collective wisdom. Somewhere Galileo is smiling with contentment.
You are really a piece of work.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I remember when he used to say on the campaign trail that, if he was elected, countries wouldn't laugh at the United States any more.
Didn't work out.
(no message)