Mediaboss Marketing

The band 'The Slants' is taking their trademark fight to the Supreme Court. Despite making music for more than a decade, the Portland, Oregon-based band has been unable to get its name registered as a federal trademark. USA TODAY NETWORK

The Slants, of Portland Ore.(Photo: The Slants)

When Simon Tam founded his rock band and named it The Slants,the Asian-American musician was trying tore-appropriate an ethnic slur and turn it into something positive.

Many people may find the name offensive, and they have plenty of options. They can vote with their feet and deny The Slants an audience. Or launch a boycott. Or go to appearances and protest. Thats the beauty of the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of speech. The antidote to speech you find offensive is more speech.

But what the federal government did in 2011, when it found the name "disparaging," is offensive to this constitutional guarantee. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied Tam trademark protection,citing a law that bars the government from approving trademarks that may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols."

Simon Tam, founder of The Slants band, at the Supreme Court in January 2017.(Photo: Yuya Matsuda)

Tam challenged the decision. And this month,after a long trip through the lower courts, the case landed at the Supreme Court, which will likely decide the case this spring. A trademark is a valuable commodity, giving the holder the exclusive right to use the name and legal power to sue others who infringe on that right.

No matter what the Patent and Trademark Office thinks of the name, government bureaucratsshouldnt be in the business of deciding what is and isnt disparaging to some group, or of protecting certain groups from getting their feelings hurt,which is essentially what the patent law allows.

USA TODAY

Deny trademark of hateful names: Opposing view

Popular, inoffensive speech seldom needs protection. The beauty of the First Amendment in a free society is that it protects unpopular or offensive speech, particularly from government regulation. The Supreme Court has said asmuch many times over many years.

The government tried to get around such strong affirmations of freedom of speech by arguing that a trademark denial doesnotrestrict free speech.The Slants can still use the name. It merely places a reasonable limit on access to a government program, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart argued for the government.

Several justices didnt buy that defense. Justice Samuel Alito said the government was stretching the concept of a government program past the breaking point, noting that the government provides many services, such as fire protection,and could not choose to provide them only to some groups.

Justice Elena Kagan said the denial sounds like a fairly classic case of viewpoint discrimination, which is flatly unconstitutional. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the laws vagueness and inconsistent application, pointing out that the patent office had both approved and rejected trademarks for the term hebe. Other trademarks, surely offensive to some, have been approved, includingYellowman, Retardipedia and Crippled Old Biker Bastards. Its all too arbitrary to pass constitutional muster.

The court's decision will affect other trademarks, some far more infamous and controversial. In 2015, a federal trial judge in Washington upheld the patent officescancellation of the trademark of the Washington Redskins football team. That appeal is pending at a federal appeals court.

Native Americans and many others find the teams name deplorable, including Tam and The Slants,whose website says redskin represents a long history of oppression.They can loudly protest, just as others can celebrate the name all without government interference.

And thats just the point. When the government denies a valuable benefit based on its arbitrary determination of offensiveness, everyone loses one of the Constitutions most cherished guarantees.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by itsEditorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view a unique USA TODAY feature.

To read more editorials, go to theOpinion front pageor sign up for thedaily Opinion email newsletter.To respond to this editorial, submit a comment toletters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2jOYy2b

Continue reading here:
What's in a name? A 1st Amendment right: Our view - USA Today - USA TODAY

In the words of the philosopher Epictetus, Only the educated are free.

While I do not intend to disseminate my political beliefs, I will refer tothe First Amendment of the U.S.Constitutionand discuss my other thoughts.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

As of today, I have not seen a violation of anybodys right to practice their religion in the United States. I will admit that there has been a hatred and bias toward particular religions in this country. For instance, the Islamic religion has become more topical since Friday. Just because a person is Muslim, does not mean he or she is a terrorist.

Religious studies scholar Reza Aslan, in an interview with Midnight Mayhem, has great insight into the Muslim religion.

On Friday, President Trump issued an executive order to ban immigrants from seven Muslim majority countries. However, this should come as no surprise as he stated his plan here, and in fact, voters go to the booths so their president can stick to their word. He had a plan, he stuck with it and his voters got what they expected.

On Sunday, President Trump tweeted a link to his official Facebook stating his intentions for the ban:

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Any person regardless of race, religion or ideology has the freedom to speak. But people will continue to hold others accountable for a poor choice of words.

I believework speaks louder than words, and if someone is willing to put in the effort toresearch and understand different viewpoints, then this person, above all, will have my attention.

When speaking, be clear in what you have to say. Do not stumble. Be confident. No person benefits from stifling themselves.

In addition, make sure toresearch, research and research. I have been on the forefront of arguments, covered numerous protests and have seen the complaints that a liberal agenda can bring to the table.

NowI do feel for the people who are directly affected by the situations they are fighting for, but nothing makes me less enthused as a journalist than to hear unintelligent responses to questions like: Why are you here? or Why is this event important? or What is the common goal of this protest, and what is your role in it?

Journalists are essentially educators, and their job is to voice your response to the issues at hand. So the next time a journalist asks you a question, I hope you have done your research on the cause of your activism, instead of shoving journalists out of the way. Were there to document, inform and educate, not embarrass and humiliate.

Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Without bias, journalists understand this law to its fullest extent. Any person has the right to assemble on public property to address the government of its grievances. Therefore, you have the right to protest and other Americans have the right to disagree with you.

If you understand that at some point in your life, there will be a disagreement, the best thing you can do is prepare to argue.

How do you do this? Educate yourself on the facts. Stand firm in your beliefs, but also understand the other side.

As open as a liberal is to welcoming other countries into their societies, conservatives are open to listening and understanding liberal concerns.

Agreeing to disagree isnt a bad thing. As a matter of fact, arguments are beneficial because they push each participant to their fullest, challenging the agendas and striving for an understanding of one another.

There are going to be opinions on this article both good and bad. However, I am ready to take them on and continue my research, education and understanding of other peoples beliefs.

I understand that no person hinders my ability to move forward in this American society. We are a mixture of people, and each person paves their own way to success.

If youre an activist, I encourage you to research your topic of choice and not go off on solely personal experiences.

As an American people, we need to find solutions to problems we have in this country. Opposing opinions different fromour own wont do any good. We must strive to educate each other, pushing everyone around usto be better citizens.

The president does not hold the key to the future, nor does the government. We the People do.

Featured Illustration: Samuel Wiggins

Visit link:
Regarding the First Amendment, let's have a conversation - North Texas Daily

Did President Donald Trumps executive order on immigration ban Muslims from the country on the basis of their religion? That will be a central question when federal judges dig more deeply into the constitutionality of the order, signed on Jan. 27. If the answer is yes, it appears vulnerable to a First Amendment challenge.

So far, four U.S. district judges -- in Brooklyn, New York; Boston; Alexandria, Virginia; and Seattle -- have issued temporary rulings blocking aspects of the order. These provisional, hastily granted judicial rulings didnt delve into deep constitutional issues. Instead, they sought to prevent deportations or other government actions that would harm individuals affected by it.

Lawyers for those individuals will return to court in coming days to flesh out their arguments. The Trump administration presumably will send attorneys from the Justice Department to defend the executive order, and the respective judges will subsequently issue more-thorough rulings.

One or more of the pending cases is likely to evolve this week into unusual and fascinating debates over the meaning of soaring constitutional provisions such as due process, equal protection, and a part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from enacting laws respecting the establishment of religion.

The debate also promises to spill over into confirmation hearings for Trumps Supreme Court nominee, whom he is expected to make in coming days.

The executive order indefinitely suspended resettlement of Syrian refugees and all other refugee resettlement for 120 days. It also banned entry for 90 days of nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

This was a Muslim ban wrapped in a paper-thin national-security rationale, said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizations that went to court to challenge the order.

Several legal experts drew similar conclusions.

Its clearly a nationality ban and a de facto religion ban, said Dan Siciliano, a law professor at Stanford University. We have in place statutes that say the government should not set policy or take actions based on nationality.

Laurence Tribe, a prominent liberal constitutional scholar at Harvard University, called the order barely disguised religious discrimination against Muslims and religious preference for Christians. The order by its own terms establishes preferential treatment for refugees identified with minority religions in their country of origin.

The Supreme Court, in a 1982 ruling, explained that the clearest command of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment "is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.

Still, some observers said the courts ultimately might uphold Trumps order. Its alleged anti-Muslim thrust is not clear to me, said Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law. Judges might interpret the order as targeting people from countries where jihadist sentiments are common, he said.The president generally has broad authority to exclude noncitizens from coming into the country, Volokh said.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, predicted the courts wouldnt interpret the order as a religious ban. It is not on its face a Muslim ban, he said. That dog simply wont hunt. No judge can look at the order and analyze it as a Muslim ban because the vast majority of Muslims around the world are not affected by the limitations placed on these seven countries.

President Trump insisted that his purpose was to halt immigration from areas afflicted by terrorism. This is not about religion, he said in a statement Sunday evening. This is about terror and keeping our country safe.

In fact, airports in the U.S. and around the world were engulfed in confusion and, in some cases, protests related to the imposition of the order.

Trump appeared to ignore the high courts 1982 pronouncement when he told Christian Broadcast News in an interview scheduled to air Sunday evening that he intended to give priority to Christians from the Middle East over Muslims. It was almost impossible for Syrian Christians to enter the U.S., he said in the interview. Separately, in a Tweet on Sunday, the president said: Christians in the Middle East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!

Keep up with the best of Bloomberg Politics.

Get our newsletter daily.

Business

Your guide to the most important business stories of the day, every day.

Markets

The most important market news of the day. So you can sleep an extra five minutes.

Technology

Insights into what you'll be paying for, downloading and plugging in tomorrow and 10 years from now.

Pursuits

What to eat, drink, wear and drive in real life and your dreams.

Game Plan

The school, work and life hacks you need to get ahead.

Even some conservative Republicans expressed unease about the constitutionality of the Trump order. Focusing on the First Amendment issue, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on ABCs This Week on Sunday: Its hopefully going to be decided in the courts as to whether or not this has gone too far.

I think we need to be careful, McConnell added. We dont have religious tests in this country.

Roger Pilon, founding director of the Cato Institutes Center for Constitutional Studies, predicted the debate over Trumps immigration order would ultimately end up with the Supreme Court.

I dont see President Trump backing down, he said. I do hope, however, that the stays the lower courts are issuing will allow for a measure of business as usual, because the initial situation seems very chaotic.

Original post:
Trump's Immigration Ban Promises Constitutional Showdown - Bloomberg

Is advertising protected speech? And can internet companies use your personal information in advertising without your permission?

These answer to these questions seems to be yes if you agree with the advertising trade associations that are asking the FCC to change its opt-in privacy rules for online service providers.

TheAssociation of National Advertisers, theAmerican Association of Advertising Agencies, theAmerican Advertising Federation, theData & Marketing Association,theInteractive Advertising Bureau, and theNetwork Advertising Initiativehave petitioned the FCC to reconsider its decision to require consumer to opt-in to having data collected, shared and used.

The group contends theFCCs orderimposes sweeping and onerous requirements and violates First Amendment protections of commercial speech.

"The Commission did this in a manner that unreasonably exceeds its statutory mandate by restricting a substantial amount of protected free speech counter to the First Amendment, and using a process that did not allow adequate notice and comment from interested parties." -Petition to FCC from Advertising Groups

The ruling in question requires providers to get opt-in approval from consumers in order to share customer information with any third party. The order, per the petition, includes information such as geo-location, childrens, health, and financial information, Social Security numbers, the content of communications, and all web browsing and app usage history information.

As someone that works in the advertising industry, I realize thats a huge change and will cause major headaches for ad tech and the way things are currently done. But on the consumer side, it seems a no-brainer that companies should have to ask before they share your info, doesnt it?

The group said in its filing, This ecosystem has functioned well for years under an enforceable self-regulatory framework which is broadly supported by industry and widely recognized as a highly credible and effective privacy self-regulatory program. The system works, they say, and allows consumers transparency about online data collection and a way to control the use of their online data while allowing data-driven innovation to flourish. I think a lot of consumers would disagree.

The group also says the FCC rules violate free speech. Part of its argument is that gathering information without consent and sharing that data with others is free speech.

The Order imposes restrictions on providers ability to use customer information for the purposes of commercial speech, without a customers opt-in to such use. As the Tenth Circuit held in U.S. West, effective speech has two componentsthe speaker and the audience; a restriction on either component is a restriction on free speech. The creation, analysis, and transfer of consumer data for marketing purposes constitutes speech. Non-misleading commercial speech regarding a lawful activity is protected under the First Amendment.Petition to FCC from Advertising Groups

View the entire petition here.

See the article here:
Advertising groups say online opt-in rules violate First Amendment - WAAY

Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.

Hundreds of thousands of concerned citizens have taken to the streets over recent weeks with sights set on, as William Faulkner wrote, changing the earth.

They marched in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles and plenty of places in between, including townslike Selinsgrove and Lewisburg. Groups traveledby the busload, trainload and carload, both for the inauguration and the Womens March, and on Friday for the annual March for Life in the nations capital. The overwhelming majority were marked by peaceful protests, a wonderful personification of the First Amendment.

Locals of every race, gender, sexual identity and religious belief either went in droves to Washington or gathered in Selinsgrove or Lewisburg. In Union County, those gathered read the Constitution aloud in public, an uncomplicated but quite effective way to get an important message across.

The U.S. Constitution is something we can all agree on, said Rabbi Nina Mandel, of Congregation Beth-El. It is here to protect our lives regardless of our political, religious or sexual affiliation. We didnt want to hold a rally that would further divide our country or our counties.

Fridays March for Life on Washington did not draw the crowds nor national media coverage as last weeks Womens March on Washington, but it was just as important. Thats why The Daily Item made its coverage prominent.

To me, the senseless destruction of human life is one of the biggest issues the nation is facing today, said Mike Seno, who drove the St. Pius X bus to D.C. for the March for Life Its the only issue I vote on. Its a major fight in my life.

Passionate people on any side of any argument havebeliefs they want to be heard.

Most important, these are people exercising a protected right for what they believe is just. Hard to find something more American than that.

Congratulations on these non-violent protests. It is a foundational right in America, exhibited perfectly over the past 10 days.

Read the original:
Personification of the First Amendment - Sunbury Daily Item