The hot takes on the Supreme Court’s 8—0 decision Monday in Matal v. Tam just keep coming. Because the court ruled in favor of an Asian-American band that wanted to trademark its name, The Slants, America’s marginalized communities are already facing an increase in PTSD and cigarette smoking, just to accommodate First Amendment absolutists’ demand that “hate speech” be protected.
Now the Washington Post is offering up a somewhat different take on the SCOTUS decision in the form of an op-ed from law professor Robert S. Chang.
Opinion: Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination. https://t.co/5XuIHuUYqv
— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 21, 2017
What hath SCOTUS wrought? If a band can trademark a name like “The Slants,” what’s to stop entrepreneurs from attempting to “recreate a segregated marketplace through signs that can be federally registered as trademarks”? For example, how long will it be until a gun shop that markets itself as a “Muslim Free Zone” trademarks the name and hangs up a sign out front?
Following Matal v. Tam, nothing will prevent the owner from obtaining federal registration of “Muslim Free Zone” as a trademark, accomplishing through speech what he might not be able to do through direct denial of service. For businesses not covered by Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nothing will prevent the creation and federal registration of trademarks such as “No Gays Allowed” or, for that matter, “Whites Only.”
So … now it isn’t up to the Patent and Trademark Office to decide for you if you can name your gay dance club, say, “No Gays Allowed,” or your chain of overpriced organic groceries, “Pretentious Hipsters Only”? Damn you, Slants!
No, even derogatory trademarks are about free speech, the highest court in land has deemed it so.
— Chris Legos (@CLegos41) June 21, 2017
The SCOTUS has spoken. The band has a right to reclaim what was once an insult and make it something they are proud of. Deal with it.
— Celia Cole (@celiacole18) June 21, 2017
How does a group discriminate against itself?
If we Americans held that view, we would be forbidden to be 'Yankees', and 'Deplorables'.— wynotme307 (@WYNOTME307) June 21, 2017
Wow, if those racists, The Slants, have him all worked up, wait till Robert S. Chang hears about those misogynists, The Slits. pic.twitter.com/g4xa9lno90
— UtaJohansdottir (@UtaJohansdottir) June 21, 2017
Or what the LGBTQ community has done with the word "queer"
— Simon Tam (@SimonTheTam) June 21, 2017
We now live in a world where newspapers write editorials arguing against the 1st Amendment.
— Tyler ? (@TCoop6231) June 21, 2017
Ah the WaPo…standing athwart the First Amendment yelling "stop."
— Brad (@EastAug) June 21, 2017
The irony of #WaPo waging war against our First Amendment never ceases to amaze.
— High Horse Winning (@LibertySeeds) June 21, 2017
We should limit the 1st amendment….also Democracy Dies in Darkness something something
— Rusty Franklin (@Woodridge_Place) June 21, 2017
The same first amendment #1a that protects the trademark gives you the right to your stupid and wrong opinion. #silverlining
— GregEsq (@GregEsq) June 21, 2017
I find disturbing not being able to call things for what they are
— Ethel Yuliana Tejada (@EthelYuliana) June 21, 2017
Those lawsuits are about trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist on behalf of others who couldn't care less.
— E Deploribus Awesome (@Citizen_USA1) June 21, 2017
“This piece isn’t about free speech, it’s about tyranny.” See how easy it is to play this game? https://t.co/6Er5q1hUox
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 21, 2017
“You must respect my right to argue for censorship but I don’t have to respect your right to speak.” — all “Why I should silence you” pieces
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 21, 2017
* * *
Related:
LA Times op-ed: Unrestricted free speech is giving marginalized groups PTSD and eating disorders https://t.co/b7WOFL3LAk
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) June 21, 2017
