‘Slants’ ruling a resounding victory for free speech
The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed a bedrock First Amendment principle: that government cannot punish or suppress speech because some people find it offensive.
The unanimous decision represents a hard-fought victory for Simon Tam, the Asian-American founder of a rock band who named his group The Slants in an effort to turn an ethnic slur into something positive. In 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied Tam trademark protection, citing a law that bars the government from approving potentially disparaging trademarks.
Government shouldn’t decide what’s offensive
Many people might find the band’s name offensive, but federal bureaucrats should not be in the business of determining what is and isn’t offensive, or protecting people from hurt feelings, which is essentially what the patent office did.
The beauty of the First Amendment is that people who find The Slants — or any other name — offensive have plenty of options to express their disgust. They could go to a Slants concert and protest. Or launch a boycott. The antidote to speech you find offensive is more speech, not get- ting the government to ban it.
The outcome of the closelywatched case could affect a better-known battle over the controversial name of Washington’s NFL football team, the Redskins, which has been the target of protest for years by some Native Americans and others. In 2014, the patent office revoked several of the team’s trademarks, under the same law it applied to The Slants.
The team’s owner sued, and the case has been moving through the courts. On Monday, the Redskins claimed victory, though the case must still await a court ruling. Assuming the Redskins prevail legally, the decision about the name will rest where it belongs — with the team, the NFL and the fans, rather than with the government.
Popular, inoffensive speech seldom needs protection. The legal battles grow from cases involving disparaging names, offensive ideas or hurtful comments, and they are the true tests of the nation’s commitment to free speech. In recent years, the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has often protected this sort of speech, whether it involves disgusting, violent videos or distasteful protests at military funerals.
In the case decided Monday, the Justice Department argued that trademarks are a form of government, rather than private, speech, and the government has an interest in preventing “underrepresented groups” from being “bombarded with demeaning messages in commercial advertising.”
In his written opinion, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. forcefully knocked down the government’s arguments. “Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend,” Alito said.
The trademark of a littleknown rock band might not seem like the stuff that makes America great. But Monday’s decision in The Slants case is what freedom sounds like.