The transcript of oral arguments in Lee v Tam is now up https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-1293_l6gn.pdf …
-
-
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
-
also i didn't tweet this earlier but in retrospect it might be the funniest part, hands down. have a great day, everyone!pic.twitter.com/yMORNDG7OQ
- 2 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.