Government admits it would be unconstitutional to deny copyright on grounds of disparagementpic.twitter.com/Q6oufTiOVj
Vous pouvez ajouter des informations de localisation à vos Tweets, comme votre ville ou votre localisation précise, depuis le Web et via des applications tierces. Vous avez toujours la possibilité de supprimer l'historique de localisation de vos Tweets. En savoir plus
Government admits it would be unconstitutional to deny copyright on grounds of disparagementpic.twitter.com/Q6oufTiOVj
government lawyer has a "trademark is not the same as copyright" moment in front of SCOTUSpic.twitter.com/FjpBHcXuSr
pg 12-13, Kagan calls the prohibition a "fairly classic case of viewpoint discrimination." 
Kennedy asks if the government is supposed to be the "omnipresent schoolteacher."pic.twitter.com/24D2BREGhQ
Ginsburg says the Slants aren't using the term to disparage, merely to describe, and that "takes the sting out of the word"pic.twitter.com/fBos4NSssT
In other news, Malcolm Stewart is the only person left in the world who thinks de minimis is still a live doctrinepic.twitter.com/cqaGjMpqrV
Ah yes, appealing to the long-held standard of "deference to internet comments sections"pic.twitter.com/MMMJlcqb90
(I wrote something about this evidence in my NYT mag piece) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/magazine/should-we-be-able-to-reclaim-a-racist-insult-as-a-registered-trademark.html …pic.twitter.com/tlYVprkcc4
Kagan won't let the viewpoint discrimination thing go.pic.twitter.com/opBfl3DdBu
Kennedy: You don't argue that this statute meets strict scrutiny. Stewart: [...] No.pic.twitter.com/dCkoTvoR3X
And then Ginsburg swings around with the vagueness question, and then Sotomayor tags in hit him again with itpic.twitter.com/3OzCBEAZVK
1) ok but seriously this is directly relevant to first amendment doctrine 2) but also lolololololololpic.twitter.com/EB2ewjZW5d
Registration isn't the same as trademark protection, and now we're wading into that issuepic.twitter.com/tXKleVMyFL
Roberts asks if it's unconstitutional to have a pro-Shakespeare festivalpic.twitter.com/W9QygIe6Dh
When Connell responds that the difference is the comprehensiveness of the trademark program, Kagan adapts the hypopic.twitter.com/Kk2Cw175Zo
Breyer says the trademark registration regime is "not a general expression program"pic.twitter.com/6wTep7SpRm
The "phrase used in Cohen v California" is FUCK THE DRAFT. This was a fancy lawyer way of saying "the f-word."pic.twitter.com/DmkpUNtE74
listen sonia, i'm reading this transcript so i DON'T have to think about mango mussolini, why are you doing this to me
pic.twitter.com/WgO259KN3G
I wasn't there but I can't stop laughing at the tone of thispic.twitter.com/Kp3z5v5p1P
pg 47, Connell says: "There was no suggestion this was a politeness statute."
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh seeing some shades of Garcia v Google herepic.twitter.com/R8jt4uSeAC
Number of times these words appear: Asian(s): 3 Asian-American(s): 3 offensive: 3 slur: 3 appropriate: 0 reappropriate: 0 Redskins: 0
racial: 5 racist: 0 flag: 3 Confederate: 1
And this is @chrisgeidner's write up of the day's oral arguments:https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justices-take-on-the-slants-and-whether-the-government-can-d …
1) this is such a ridiculous thing to be forever immortalized in the annals of legal historypic.twitter.com/COzwTqueGJ
2) aside from ginsburg briefly mentioning that the "sting" is taken out of the word, no other discussion of reappropriation
the question of appropriation is thus reduced to "hard facts," instead of a broad, concrete issue affecting the Lanham Act
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.