Asked to decide whether a band name using pejorative slang could be deprived of trademark protections, the Supreme Court correctly ruled in defense of the band — and of the First Amendment.
Let’s hope the decision will herald the high-water mark of America’s speech-policing movement.
Americans have been busybodies about manners and mores for hundreds of years. That’s a tradition set to continue for a long time. But now, the concerted effort of a radical vanguard to inscribe its desired speech restrictions into law — especially through the courts — should come to an end.
The court’s ruling affirmed two basic rules. First, so-called hate speech is safe from prohibition. Second, and even more important, what we could think of as “soft” hate speech is safe from “soft” punishment.
So, a group cannot be denied traditional legal protections by the government for using language that is — or could be — offensive to groups historically granted constitutional protection against invidious discrimination. In this case, the group is a band, whose members are Asian-American, that calls itself The Slants.
Not only does this ruling square with the plain meaning of the First Amendment. It goes further, clarifying that speech jurisprudence does not blur into a vast gray area where judges must determine if a hypothetical party might reasonably claim standing based on the injury of offense. Even if some person or large group of people could reasonably take grave offense at trademarked language, the law must not retaliate by trimming or withholding trademark rights.
The implications that flow from the ruling are big. To begin with, the court cracked down on the notion that offensive speech is especially undeserving of protection when it is used to make a profit. A growing number of Americans are themselves offended when, as in the case of the Washington Redskins, a cash cow of a brand is seen as racial disparagement. (The Trademark Office controversially…