It’s not the government’s job to decide what speech is disparaging. On Monday the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination when it issues trademarks. In a case brought by the Asian-American rock band, The Slants, the Court struck down a provision of federal trademark law (the Lanham Act) that bars the registration of trademarks that disparage “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute.” Ilya Shapiro writes that this is the right decision:
“Fundamentally, this somewhat unusual case […] shows that government can’t make you choose among your rights. The Lanham Act’s disparagement clause placed an unconstitutional condition on those who consider the use of an edgy or taboo phrase to be part of their brand: either change your name or be denied the right to use it effectively. Whether you’re a musician, a politician, or a sports team—the Washington Redskins’ moniker will now be safe—it’s civil society (consumers, voters, fans) who should decide whether you’re being too offensive for polite company.”
More at Cato Institute
