SCOTUS OKs Fuct
You hear this?
Is Fuct free speech or is free speech Fuct? This morning the Supreme Court answered the question posed by Erik Brunetti and his skate brand Fuct, ruling 6-3 that a federal ban on registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks violates the First Amendment. Justice Kagan delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor and Breyer filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The immediate upside: Brunetti will now be able to obtain a federal trademark for Fuct, a protection that had been previously denied to him based on the Truman-era Lanham Act, which allowed the government to refuse registration of trademarks that consist of “scandalous” or “immoral” material. The ideologically diverse majority found common ground in ruling for Brunetti. “The government may not discriminate against speech based on the ideas or opinions it conveys,” writes Kagan, thus determining that the provision infringes on the First Amendment.
(https://www.gq.com/story/fuct-iancu-v-brunetti-supreme-court-ruling)
I'm a big proponent of the First Amendment (and the Second, too). Freedom of Speech is a major component of what makes America America.
I agree that "Fuct" (pronounced "F-U-C-T") dangles on a very, very fine line between "free speech" and "obscenity".
However, I agree with the 6-3 ruling. This is not an area where we want the courts/government to be drawing lines. If it's not CLEARLY obscene, it's free speech.
Grace & Peace & Love to you all -
Matt
Is Fuct free speech or is free speech Fuct? This morning the Supreme Court answered the question posed by Erik Brunetti and his skate brand Fuct, ruling 6-3 that a federal ban on registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks violates the First Amendment. Justice Kagan delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor and Breyer filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The immediate upside: Brunetti will now be able to obtain a federal trademark for Fuct, a protection that had been previously denied to him based on the Truman-era Lanham Act, which allowed the government to refuse registration of trademarks that consist of “scandalous” or “immoral” material. The ideologically diverse majority found common ground in ruling for Brunetti. “The government may not discriminate against speech based on the ideas or opinions it conveys,” writes Kagan, thus determining that the provision infringes on the First Amendment.
(https://www.gq.com/story/fuct-iancu-v-brunetti-supreme-court-ruling)
I'm a big proponent of the First Amendment (and the Second, too). Freedom of Speech is a major component of what makes America America.
I agree that "Fuct" (pronounced "F-U-C-T") dangles on a very, very fine line between "free speech" and "obscenity".
However, I agree with the 6-3 ruling. This is not an area where we want the courts/government to be drawing lines. If it's not CLEARLY obscene, it's free speech.
Grace & Peace & Love to you all -
Matt
