"[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. 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 that we hate.'"
That was the writing of one of the 8 justices that unanimously found "hate speech" laws illegal this week.
The case where this happened had to do with whether a band called "The Slants" could get a patent for the name. It was denied by the Patent Office because they thought it was probably racially disparaging, and they have a disparagement clause where they don't patent that type of thing.
The story of the case, from the syllabus:
"Simon Tam, lead singer of the rock group 'The Slants,' chose this moniker in order to 'reclaim' the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons. Tam sought federal registration of the mark 'THE SLANTS.' The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application under a Lanham Act provision prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may 'disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute' any 'persons, living or dead.' Tam contested the denial of registration through the administrative appeals process, to no avail. He then took the case to federal court, where the en banc Federal Circuit ultimately found the disparagement clause facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. "
Tam wanted the Patent Office to accept the band name, and even to change the wording of their clause.
But the Supreme Court (and the circuit court before) found that the clause itself was unconstitutional.
"The disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Contrary to the Government’s contention, trademarks are private, not government speech. Because the “Free Speech
Clause . . . does not regulate government speech,” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the government is not required to maintain viewpoint neutrality on its own speech. This Court exercises great caution in extending its government-speech precedents, for if private speech could be passed off as government speech by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints."
Syllabus
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Tuesday, 20 June 2017
Monday, 19 June 2017
Supreme Court Strikes Law Barring Sex Offenders from Social Media
8-0. It was unanimous.
The U.S. Constitution First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. And now, according to the Supreme Court, an earlier law that barred sex offenders from using social media was struck because it impermissibly restricts that right.
North Carolina had made it a felony for sex offenders from using social media whenever the websites allow members to be children.
A man in that state who was a registered sex offender was charged after making a normal Facebook post. He challenged the charge. It went back and forth a little with the judges in the state and appellate courts, but the Supreme Court decided the state hadn't shown the sweeping law was necessary or legitimate.
One of the justices wrote, "These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to ‘become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.’"
The U.S. Constitution First Amendment protects the freedom of speech. And now, according to the Supreme Court, an earlier law that barred sex offenders from using social media was struck because it impermissibly restricts that right.
North Carolina had made it a felony for sex offenders from using social media whenever the websites allow members to be children.
A man in that state who was a registered sex offender was charged after making a normal Facebook post. He challenged the charge. It went back and forth a little with the judges in the state and appellate courts, but the Supreme Court decided the state hadn't shown the sweeping law was necessary or legitimate.
One of the justices wrote, "These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to ‘become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.’"
Monday, 8 May 2017
Tough Legal Question: The President's Statements VS Acts
A debate is taking place in legal circles, matching the contentious findings of the various judges that have been dealing with figuring out how Trump's executive orders are related to his earlier statements.
During the campaign trail, Trump said he would institute a Muslim ban. Most legal experts would consider such a ban to be a violation of the Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. Now that Trump is trying to enact a travel ban from several countries where Muslims are the majority, the claim that travel from the countries poses a risk to the U.S. is not enough.
His first attempt at the travel ban was struck down in court because of his earlier statements. Those arguing against the ban said that because Trump had earlier said he wanted a Muslim ban, no matter what he says now about a travel ban, the ban is actually a ban against Muslims, even if it has no language in it mentioning religious affiliation. Trump's second attempt at travel restrictions is facing similar challenges.
Another aspect of the debate is the question of what would be enough to satisfy those arguing against Trump that he no longer wanted a Muslim ban, and just wanted to increase security. In the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals this week, Judge Robert King asked, "What if the President repudiated his statements in the campaign and post-election about the Muslim ban? What if he repudiated them all?"
The lawyer for the International Refugee Assistance Project, Omar Jadwat, responded that it would be "a significant fact" but that it "would not change the result."
Judge Dennis Shedd then followed up, "What if he says he's sorry every day for a year? Would that do it for you?"
Jadwat responded, "... Here's the issue, your honor. What the establishment clause prohibits is targeting and denigrating religion. At a minimum, that's what it prohibits. And the question is, would reasonable people see what he was doing in total as achieving that effect?"
"You say reasonable people would say he doesn't really mean it when he says he's sorry?"
"Your honor, I think it's possible that saying sorry is not enough."
Other hypotheticals were posed by the court, such as whether another candidate had won the election and they tried to instute the travel ban, or if Trump had said he hated Muslims earlier in life (in college), or if there was a clear threat from a religious group. The questions circle the main issue: Are executive orders to be judged based just on national security, or does the religious liberty clause jurisprudence come into play as well?
During the campaign trail, Trump said he would institute a Muslim ban. Most legal experts would consider such a ban to be a violation of the Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. Now that Trump is trying to enact a travel ban from several countries where Muslims are the majority, the claim that travel from the countries poses a risk to the U.S. is not enough.
His first attempt at the travel ban was struck down in court because of his earlier statements. Those arguing against the ban said that because Trump had earlier said he wanted a Muslim ban, no matter what he says now about a travel ban, the ban is actually a ban against Muslims, even if it has no language in it mentioning religious affiliation. Trump's second attempt at travel restrictions is facing similar challenges.
Another aspect of the debate is the question of what would be enough to satisfy those arguing against Trump that he no longer wanted a Muslim ban, and just wanted to increase security. In the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals this week, Judge Robert King asked, "What if the President repudiated his statements in the campaign and post-election about the Muslim ban? What if he repudiated them all?"
The lawyer for the International Refugee Assistance Project, Omar Jadwat, responded that it would be "a significant fact" but that it "would not change the result."
Judge Dennis Shedd then followed up, "What if he says he's sorry every day for a year? Would that do it for you?"
Jadwat responded, "... Here's the issue, your honor. What the establishment clause prohibits is targeting and denigrating religion. At a minimum, that's what it prohibits. And the question is, would reasonable people see what he was doing in total as achieving that effect?"
"You say reasonable people would say he doesn't really mean it when he says he's sorry?"
"Your honor, I think it's possible that saying sorry is not enough."
Other hypotheticals were posed by the court, such as whether another candidate had won the election and they tried to instute the travel ban, or if Trump had said he hated Muslims earlier in life (in college), or if there was a clear threat from a religious group. The questions circle the main issue: Are executive orders to be judged based just on national security, or does the religious liberty clause jurisprudence come into play as well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)