•   
  •   
  •   

USSupreme Court to hear unusual case about the 'f word' — but not the one you think

20:35  11 march  2019
20:35  11 march  2019 Source:   nbcnews.com

Chief Justice Roberts’ recent votes raise doubts about 'conservative revolution' on Supreme Court

Chief Justice Roberts’ recent votes raise doubts about 'conservative revolution' on Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' recent votes aligning with the Supreme Court’s liberal wing have raised questions about whether a widely anticipated "conservative revolution" on the nation's highest court will materialize anytime soon. On Wednesday, Roberts sided with a 5-3 majority decision to send a case concerning a death row inmate back to a lower court. In February, Roberts was the key vote in temporarily blocking a Louisiana law that would have placed restrictions on abortion clinics. And in December, Roberts voted to block President Trump from rejecting asylum to any immigrants who had crossed the U.S.

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether the Patent Office's refusal to trademark the clothing line "Fuct" violated the owners' free speech. But when Brunetti sought legal protection for the company's name, the federal government said it could not issue a trademark for the word he chose: Fuct.

Spread the word . The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly. Join the conversation. Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you ’re passionate about, and jump right in. Learn the latest. Get instant insight into

Supreme Court to hear unusual case about the 'f word' — but not the one you think© Al Drago Image: The U.S. Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — When Eric Brunetti and Natas Kaupas, a phenomenal Southern California skateboarder, launched a line of streetwear in 1990, they wanted a brand name that would match the subversive, anti-establishment theme of their clothing.

So they coined a single four-letter word to appear on their T-shirts, hoodies, jackets and shorts. But when Brunetti sought legal protection for the company's name, the federal government said it could not issue a trademark for the word he chose: Fuct.

Man convicted in murders of pregnant woman, kids says sentence unconstitutional

Man convicted in murders of pregnant woman, kids says sentence unconstitutional A man serving time for a triple murder will appear Tuesday in front of the Supreme Judicial Court to argue his case for parole. Daniel LaPlante was convicted with the 1987 murders of a young pregnant mother and her two kids in Townsend. LaPlante was 17 at the time. He's arguing his sentence is unconstitutional because he's been ordered to serve 45 years before he's able to seek parole. In 2014 the state adopted a law that says the longest term juveniles convicted of murder must serve before they can ask for parole is 30 years. The court will hear his Tuesday.

They describe it as the court hearing “an unusual case about the f word ,” but it’s not the F - word you ’re thinking of. At least not exactly. So they coined a single four-letter word to appear on their T-shirts, hoodies, jackets and shorts. But when Brunetti sought legal protection for the company’s name

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether the Patent Office's refusal to trademark the clothing line "Fuct" violated the owners' free speech. politics/ supreme - court / supreme - court - hear - unusual - case - about - f - word -not- one -n981416.

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether that refusal violated Brunetti's freedom of speech.

A century-old provision of federal law requires the Patent and Trademark Office to refuse registration of proposed trademarks that are "scandalous" or "immoral." Government attorneys concluded that Brunetti's brand name was phonetically equivalent to the past tense form of the universally known f-word (also the past participle, they could have noted).

The trademark office considers a name to be scandalous if it is "shocking to the sense of truth, decency, or propriety" or "disgraceful, offensive, disreputable." Federal courts have said the prohibition also applies to terms that are "vulgar, lacking in taste, indelicate, and morally crude."

It’s Morning Again For Religious Freedom In America

It’s Morning Again For Religious Freedom In America But people who misunderstand the Constitution or simply resent religious belief will keep trying to subvert the First Amendment . Freedom-loving Americans must continue to be wise and vigilant. Ken Blackwell (@KenBlackwell) is a senior fellow for human rights and constitutional governance at the Family Research Council. He served as Ohio’s secretary of state from 1999-2007. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a pair of cases about searches of vehicles in unusual circumstances. The second case involving a vehicle search the justices agreed to hear concerned Terrence Byrd, who was driving a rental car with the renter’s permission but was not listed as an

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it would consider a legal challenge to President Obama’s overhaul of the nation’s immigration rules The justices raised the possibility of a broad decision by taking the unusual step of adding their own question to the case , asking the parties

Supreme Court to hear unusual case about the 'f word' — but not the one you think© Charley Gallay Image: Erik Brunetti

Scandalous, however, is just the sort of thing Brunetti wanted his name to be, so he appealed. And he won. A federal appeals court agreed that the brand name is scandalous, but it ruled that the provision of law barring trademarks for such terms violates freedom of speech.

The appeals court said the government cannot suppress expression merely because it will be off-putting to others. A key factor in its ruling was a 2017 decision by the Supreme Court that struck down another provision of federal law barring trademarks that disparage people or "bring them into contempt or disrepute."

That decision was a victory for the Asian-American leader of a Portland dance-rock band who wanted to call his group "The Slants." The Supreme Court said speech that demeans is hateful, but that the First Amendment protects even the thoughts that we hate. The ruling was also hailed by the NFL's Washington Redskins, whose application for a trademark had been rejected on the grounds that it was demeaning to Native Americans.

Supreme Court takes on racial gerrymander claim in Virginia

Supreme Court takes on racial gerrymander claim in Virginia The Supreme Court will delve into the issue of racial gerrymandering Monday when the justices review a lower court opinion that struck down Virginia district maps as a violation of the Constitution. At issue are 11 maps drawn by the House of Delegates in 2011 that were successfully challenged by registered voters in each district.

The Supreme Court has moved in the opposite direction. The justices do not want to hear the word even when the case before them turns on it. Christopher M. Fairman, a law professor at Ohio State University who is the nation’s leading authority on the legal status of the word , wrote about the case

courts --particularly the Supreme Court --have heard a number of cases which have given guidance to the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. To measure proportionality, the court must look at several factors. These factors include the severity of the offense, the harshness of the penalty, the

The Trump administration is urging the justices to uphold the decision of the trademark office and the provision banning protection for scandalous terms. Brunetti's speech isn't being restricted, the government said, because he can call his clothing line whatever he wants and has used the term since 1991. He just can't get the benefit of a federal trademark.

Supreme Court to hear unusual case about the 'f word' — but not the one you think© Alessandro Barthlow Image: Man wearing t-shirt from

Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in his court filing that Congress does not want the federal government to "affirmatively promote the use of graphic sexual images and vulgar terms by granting them the benefits of registration."

The administration also said the trademark law does not violate the First Amendment because it is not a restriction on offensive ideas. Instead it its aimed at an offensive means of expressing whatever thought the company wishes to convey, government lawyers say.

In response, Brunetti argued that if the justices uphold the trademark restriction, "state and local governments could effectively block unpopular organizations advancing controversial causes" thought to be scandalous to at least a portion of the public.

Besides, he said, the trademark office doesn't refuse trademarks for all profanity or sexual content but instead makes decisions grounded on the level of perceived offensiveness, which he says is a restriction based on ideas. He notes, for example, that the government has issued a trademark for the brand name "FCUK," which the company insists stands for French Connection UK, and for a clothing line called "Fword" and an online dating site known as "WTF is up with my love life?!"

A group of intellectual property lawyers agrees with him, noting that the name "Madonna" was denied as a trademark for a brand of wine, but "Weekend Sex" was allowed as a trademark for a magazine.

The justices will hear the case on April 15 and issue a decision by the end of June.

Read More

U.S. top court undermines Google settlement in internet privacy case.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday cast doubt on a $8.5 million settlement Google had agreed to pay to end an internet privacy dispute, directing a lower court to review whether plaintiffs who accused the search engine operator of wrongdoing in a class action lawsuit were legally eligible to sue. The justices threw out the lower court's ruling that had upheld the settlement and directed it to take a fresh look at whether the plaintiffs had actually been harmed by Google and had the necessary legal standing. The plaintiffs had argued that Google violated federal privacy law by allowing other websites to see users' search queries.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!