Marni Soupcoff: Canadians should be envious of the U.S.’ liberal approach to controversial speech

The United States Supreme Court ruled this week that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a band’s right to trademark an “offensive” name. It was a victory for Asian-American dance-rockers The Slants, who meant their name to be a progressive provocation rather than a disparaging slur (although the word has been used to negatively stereotype Asians).

But does the group’s intent even matter? The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the entire federal law that prohibited registering trademarks that could be deemed disparaging.

Share
  • Jaedo Drax

    the difference between Natural Rights (U.S.) and Human Rights (pretty much everywhere else).

    In Natural rights, they exist with or without the state.
    In Human rights, the rights come from the state, and can be modified by the state at their whim.

    after all the USSR had a great human rights charter: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html

    • Alain

      As did Germany in the 1930s.

  • Spatchcocked

    In the 60s and 70s Esquire magazine back when L Rust Hills and Gingrich ran it had Mao Tse Tungs address as “head slope slantland”

    Truly great mag….wait all year for the Dubious achievement awards.

    Oh well……it’s all change decline and decay today.

  • Gary

    So NWA is just fine for a hip hop group???

    • Minicapt

      “Naturally Whining Africans”?

      Cheers

  • Blind Druid

    Do you remember “The Bare Naked Ladies” being banned from Massey Hall, Toronto when they first surfaced? Now they are Canadian icons. The Slants — more power to them.