By Selwyn Duke
// <![CDATA[
let inDapIF = true;
// ]]>
// <![CDATA[
let inDapIF = true;
// ]]>
// <![CDATA[
let inDapIF = true;
// ]]>
“One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric” wrote the Supreme Court in a 1971 free-speech case. While astute philosophers could complain of the relativism this statement implies, we certainly should fear making offensiveness relative to some bureaucrat. The SCOTUS apparently agrees, too, ruling Monday that the government may not decline trademark protection for so-called “disparaging” terms.
At issue was the case of “The Slants,” a Portland, Oregon, dance-rock band comprising performers of Asian descent. After being denied a trademark for their name under a 1946 provision of U.S. law (the Lanham Act) prohibiting offensive trademarks, band member Simon Tam sued. A federal appeals court ruled the act’s “Disparagement Clause” unconstitutional in 2015, an opinion that has now been upheld by the SCOTUS 8-0.
Read the rest here.
selwynduke.com 
Let us know what you think, dear reader. We value your input!