Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: NOBO2012
How did such a preposterous case ever reach scotus in the first place? It must mean that somewhere some derelict circuit court upheld this attack on the first amendment.
2 posted on 06/20/2017 4:44:50 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: hinckley buzzard
How did such a preposterous case ever reach scotus

Of course you know, but think left-wing that thought they'd always be in charge, and they still are in charge of way too much.

3 posted on 06/20/2017 4:52:25 AM PDT by libertylover (In 2016 small-town America got tired of being governed by people who don't know a boy from a girl.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard

Free Speech, however, is proscribed in the workplace, the church, the school and the home. As an employee I will fire you if you speak contentiously about me or my business. A teacher requires civility and obedience in the classroom. A church may dismiss a member for speech that is offensive. Mom (or Dad) may wash your mouth with soap if you say that word one more time. Government, however, may not restrict my offensive speech. OTOH blocking traffic is not speech. It is blocking traffic. Rioting is not speech. It is rioting. Deliberately lying about a person you dislike is speech but it is not free. It is slander.


4 posted on 06/20/2017 4:59:57 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Progressivism is 2 year olds in a poop fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard

” It must mean that somewhere some derelict circuit court upheld this attack on the first amendment. “

Doesn’t look that way. From the decision:

“Tam sought federal registration of the mark “THE SLANTS.” The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application under a Lanham Act provision prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” 15 U. S. C. §1052(a). Tam contested the denial of registration through the administrative appeals process, to no avail. He then took the case to federal court, where the en banc Federal Circuit ultimately found the disparagement clause facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.”

The PTO appealed and it went to SCOTUS.


6 posted on 06/20/2017 6:09:26 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson