1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Supreme Court Just Ruled In Favor of Fuct

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Skwim, Jun 25, 2019.

  1. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    25,536
    Ratings:
    +9,807
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    .

    "The Supreme Court struck down Monday a provision of federal law that prohibits the registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks as a violation of the First Amendment. The justices' ruling clears the way for a clothing designer to apply for a federal trademark for his clothing line called FUCT.

    The ruling, which was unanimous in part and 6-3 in part, could open the doors to more requests to register words or phrases that have been considered vulgar, a concern that the court's minority feared. "We hold that this provision infringes the First Amendment," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion, because it "disfavors certain ideas."

    Entrepreneur Erik Brunetti said he founded a clothing brand in 1990 to question authority and the assumptions of society. He said his company's name stands for "FRIENDS U CAN'T TRUST."

    In 2011, Brunetti sought to register the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in order to obtain benefits such as expanding rights against others attempting to use the same mark. The office refused Brunetti's request because it said FUCT was the "phonetic equivalent" of the past tense of a vulgar word, and determined that federal law prohibits the registration of trademarks that consist of "scandalous" subject matter. "According to Brunetti, the mark (which functions as the clothing's brand name) is pronounced as four letters, one after the other: F-U-C-T. But you might read it differently and, if so, you would hardly be alone," Kagan wrote. Kagan wrote the statute "does not draw the line at lewd, sexually explicit, or profane marks" instead it covers "the universe of immoral or scandalous" material.

    "A law disfavoring 'ideas that offend' discriminates based on viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment," she wrote.

    Kagan was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch in full. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor concurred in part and dissented in part.

    Alito suggested that Congress could step in and act. "Our decision does not prevent Congress from adopting a more carefully focused statute that precludes the registration of marks containing vulgar terms that play no real part in the expression of ideas," Alito wrote in a concurring opinion. He conceded the registration of such marks "serves only to further coarsen our popular culture," but the justices are "not legislators and cannot substitute a new statute for the one now in force."



    Roberts, Breyer and Sotomayor would have saved part of the statute that prohibits "scandalous" trademarks. Breyer said he would do so because "these attention-grabbing words" may lead "to the creation of public spaces that many will find repellant, perhaps on occasion creating the risk of verbal altercations or even physical confrontations."

    "Just think," he wrote, "about how you might react if you saw someone wearing a t-shirt or using a product emblazoned with an odious racial epithet."

    Sotomayor added that the court's decision "will beget unfortunate results." "Much of the debate between the Justices in this case is over just how far they can go to rewrite a poorly worded statute in order to save it from constitutional challenge," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

    "That fight shows up in three of the Court's four decisions from Monday -- and is, in many ways, a sign of the times, as the Court confronts an increasingly polarized Congress that, for various reasons, may be more likely to write vague statutes than clear ones," Vladeck said.

    The justices will deliver additional opinions on Wednesday."
    source


    So, what do you think?


    Should vulgar sounding words have the same First Amendment protection as non-vulgar sounding words?

    .
     
    #1 Skwim, Jun 25, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Amanaki

    Amanaki Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    3,398
    Ratings:
    +1,881
    Religion:
    Cultivator of Buddha Dhamma
    Why use vulgar language in the first place?
    I think its good that vulgar words can be banned from use in public.

    Why would someone walk around with clothes called ****ed or even worse have it written on the clothes ?
     
  3. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    25,536
    Ratings:
    +9,807
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Because it expresses an attitude or sentiment in a succinct and unmistakable manner, just like many non-vulgar expressions do.

    Because like tattoos, tiny bikinis, and nose rings,it draws attention to oneself.

    .
     
    #3 Skwim, Jun 25, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
  4. Amanaki

    Amanaki Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    3,398
    Ratings:
    +1,881
    Religion:
    Cultivator of Buddha Dhamma
    Why would drawing attention to oneself in the street be good?
    And i guess a lot of the attention one gets is negative?
     
  5. Enoch07

    Enoch07 It's all a sick freaking joke.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    7,925
    Ratings:
    +2,216
    Religion:
    Theistic Rationalist-Christian
    Yes, or else the world would become very boring.

    There is a t-shirt to poke fun of socialist.

    The shirt says "Socialism is for Figs". Which is a reference to La Higuera - Wikipedia which translated means "The Fig Tree" which is the town where good ole Che Guevara was executed. It's to poke fun at a mass murdering tyrant.

    What makes it even more hilarious is that some of LGBT community that are socialist/communist claim it's homophobic.

    Compounded by the fact that Che Guevara was a homophobic communist that slaughtered LGBT people every chance he got, and they hail him as a hero and defend his actions! Talk about a sick freaking joke.
     
  6. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Oldest Heretic

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    15,175
    Ratings:
    +2,930
    Religion:
    Anglican...heretic
    The justices are right. if statutes are poorly written, problems will result.
    The legislators will need to revisit this if they want to prevent the use of swearwords or crude words in commercial use.
    Though it reasonable to suppose that they should not be used in this way.

    In the UK the supreme court probably would reinterpret the law, as we do not have a written constitution to prevent this. And they would take the position of the interpretation of the law as a "reasonable" man would see the original intention was of the legislation.

    It is the courts duty to interpret and apply the law.
     
  7. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    9,324
    Ratings:
    +8,007
    Religion:
    none
    Che also really sucked at being a revolutionary. It's a bit like Americans in 50 years proudly illustrating their politics by walking around wearing Mitt Romney or Walter Mondale t-shirts.

    Spent the last 3 years of his life incompetently bumbling around Congo and Bolivia where he was more successful at getting dysentery than getting followers, while pissing off the people he was 'saving' so much they were happy to inform on him.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    145,982
    Ratings:
    +40,314
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    It's fascinating that Trump's justices are so liberal.
    This should overturn some mental apple carts, eh.
     
  9. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    5,764
    Ratings:
    +4,360
    Isn’t there already a clothes/shoes line called
    FCUK?
     
  10. shmogie

    shmogie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    5,659
    Ratings:
    +1,012
    Religion:
    Christian
    Because vulgarity to some is hip, cool, and otherwise neat to a portion of the population.

    Do you think it is crude, and maybe you would not want your kids to read it ?

    The vulgar portion of the population laughs at you.
     
  11. leov

    leov Active Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2019
    Messages:
    919
    Ratings:
    +185
    Religion:
    christian
    Free speech is free speech, unfortunately, our society promotes garbage as IQ drops and ignorance thrives.
     
  12. Vinayaka

    Vinayaka devotee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    27,545
    Ratings:
    +11,865
    Religion:
    Saivite Hindu
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    rebellion, immaturity, wanting attention
     
  13. columbus

    columbus Conservative Catholic from Hell

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    19,227
    Ratings:
    +11,951
    Religion:
    None
    We American people have a different attitude towards freedom of speech.
    Personally, think the brand name in very bad taste, and would never buy it. I would assume that someone wearing it was crude and tasteless, and I'd treat them accordingly.

    But I very much oppose the government forbidding such things, because I don't trust them with the power to ban speech. Speech has to be highly likely to result in violence or deception before I am willing to let the government get involved.

    @Revoltingest
    I'm not sure if this makes me a liberal or a conservative. Rev seems to think it's liberal, but it's classically liberal. Today that's often considered conservative, here in the wacky USA.
    Tom
     
  14. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    145,982
    Ratings:
    +40,314
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    ...the bizarre world of RF political definitions.

    I identify as a classical liberal (and as a libertarian).
    Yet I'm prohibited from posting in the Conservative Only forum.
    And the prefix "classical" also means I cannot post in the Liberal Only forum.

    Another odd wrinkle....
    RF says that the USSR's economic was "state capitalism".
    So the addition of a prefix to "capitalism" is acceptable.
    Anyone who likes Soviet socialism could identify as such,
    & be allowed in the Capitalist Only forum.
    Similarly "left libertarians", who are really just N Ameristanian
    style modern liberals, can post in the Libertarian Only forum,
    despite their wanting economic authoritarianism. (This can
    be observed by seeing who is permitted to post where.)

    Prefix policy seems designed to let liberals post everywhere,
    but without reciprocal benefit to others.
     
  15. columbus

    columbus Conservative Catholic from Hell

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    19,227
    Ratings:
    +11,951
    Religion:
    None
    Aren't you glad your modship is informal, and you don't have to deal with people like me unless you want to?
    Tom
     
  16. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    145,982
    Ratings:
    +40,314
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    I'd never want to be The Man.
    But I did once consider owning The Man.
     
Loading...