Freedom for the thought we hate
High court sides with free speech
FANS of free expression rejoiced Monday as the First Amendment prevailed in a high-profile legal clash with political correctness. In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal bureaucrats violate the Constitution by denying trademarks to certain messages they deem offensive.
The case before the justices involved an Asian-american rock band from Portland, Ore., named The Slants. When the band’s founder sought to trademark the name, federal officials refused, citing a 71-year-old law that allows the government to reject efforts to protect “scandalous, immoral or disparaging marks.”
The constitutional problems, here, should be obvious to first-year law students. Nevertheless, Barack Obama’s Justice Department concluded that trademark law was exempt from the Bill of Rights, arguing the band suffered no injury because members were still free to use the name without trademark protection.
In fact, the law enabled the government to withhold legal rights based on the content of the message being conveyed. And it left such decisions to the whim of federal functionaries. How does that comport with the First Amendment?
The high court agreed: It doesn’t.
“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought we hate,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged the dangers of censoring unpopular speech. “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all,” he wrote.
The Slants — who put out a recent album with the title “The Band Who Must Not Be Named” — will now be free to protect their moniker from infringement. The ruling also has ramifications for the NFL’S Washington Redskins. The franchise is currently contesting in court a 2014 decision in which patent officials canceled the team’s trademark on the grounds that its long-standing nickname offended Native Americans.
Monday’s decision should also put on notice those authoritarian progressives who seek to use the power of the state to suppress discourse and expression that they find disconcerting or offensive. Exposure to controversial, radical or distasteful ideas is a one of the privileges afforded those who live in a free society. The Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict in this case sends a clear and welcome message that the justices won’t tolerate infringements on freedom of speech in the name of identity politics or political correctness.
The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-journal. All other opinions expressed on the Opinion and Commentary pages are those of the individual artist or author indicated.
The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.
Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125
Fax 702-383-4676 CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, New York Post, Politico, etc. to see the anti-trump rhetoric they put out. Also, look at Kathy Griffin’s holding what appears to be the severed head of President Trump. And how about the Shakespeare production in New York City’s Central Park showing a Trump-looking actor being stabbed to death on stage a la Caesar?
The New York Times is one of the sponsors of this outrageous production, and they are proud of it!
The congressional shooter was a Bernie Sanders supporter and thought it would be OK to go out and shoot Republican lawmakers because he hated them so much. Where did he get that idea? Of course Bernie Sanders denounced this wacko’s actions. Too little, too late.
I think the Justice Department needs to go after any news organization or radical group that incites violence against our elected politicians before it gets out of hand.
It may be too late. day we view commercials from lawyers suing Big Pharma. One lawyer, in his commercial, advises that the targeted pharmaceutical has a $650 million set aside due to lawsuits.
Am I saying this is only issue driving up costs? No, but it is one of the factors that most of us are unaware of. We need “loser pays” in the United States to stop the many frivolous lawsuits.
We also need to know the other factors causing these increases so they can be addressed. I believe no one should lose his or her residence due to illness. A countrywide high-risk pool could be established. We have 50 states, each a laboratory from which we can all learn how to better control costs.