Supreme Court Deals HUGE Blow to Liberal Snowflakes With Landmark Ruling

Supreme Court Deals HUGE Blow to Liberal Snowflakes With Landmark Ruling

Just this week, the Supreme Court settled a long-brewing argument over the nature of free speech when it butts up against whether an “offensive” name can be copyrighted.

A few years ago, the Washington Redskins were under fire for their name, with the complaint being that the admittedly old school “Redskins” causes modern, real world damage. NFL teams may have one standard applied to them, but in college football, Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish barely raised a stir. Both names might be racially insensitive, but Social Justice puts the feelings of native Americans above those of Irish descent, but I digress.

This ruling has come down solidly on the side of a band who wanted to trademark their name, “The Slants,” which is an Asian-American dance-rock back. Every member of the band has Asian ancestry and their name, The Slants, is a play on the stereotypical portrayal of cartoonish Asians with slanted eyes. The fact that five Americans of Asian descent in America wanted to call their band after a stereotypical depiction of their heritage is funny to everyone who isn’t trolling for attention and victimhood.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

“Hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment and it can also be trademarked and sold. This Supreme Court ruling clarifies that a federal law that banned the trademarking of offensive names is unconstitutional.

Free speech is not a partisan issue, as both the right and the left must cherish it in order for either of their ideas to develop, but Social Justice Warriors took this a personal attack and filled Twitter with their grief.

They can cry all they want.

As reported by Red Alert Politics:

“(The idea that the government may restrict) speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment,” wrote Justice Alito in his opinion. “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
“A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an ‘egregious form of content discrimination,’ which is ‘presumptively unconstitutional,’” Justice Kennedy wrote in a separate opinion. “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.”

Hear, hear.

Margaret M.

Internet Specialist at Warfare Media.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!