By George Will
Saturday, January 14, 2017
In 1929, Chief Justice William Howard Taft convinced
Congress to finance construction of “a building of dignity and importance” for
the Supreme Court. He could not have imagined what the court will ponder during
oral arguments this Wednesday. The case concerns the name of an Asian-American
rock band: The Slants. And surely Taft never read a friend-of-the-court brief
as amusing as one filed in this case. It is titled “Brief of the Cato Institute
and a Basket of Deplorable People and Organizations.”
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is empowered, by the
so-called “disparagement clause” of a 1946 law, to protect American
sensitivities by denying trademark protection to “immoral, deceptive or
scandalous” trademarks. These have included those that a substantial portion of
a particular group perceive as disparaging that group — an ethnic, religious,
national, or other cohort. The PTO has canceled the trademark registrations of
entities named Mormon Whiskey, Abort the Republicans, Democrats Shouldn’t
Breed, Marriage Is for Fags, and many more.
The Cato/Deplorables brief urges compassionate
libertarianism: “This Court should make the jobs of the employees at the . . .
[PTO] much easier and put an end to the disparagement clause.” Government
officials cannot be trusted to “neutrally” identify speech that disparages.
Besides, “disparaging speech has been central to political debate, cultural
discourse, and personal identity” throughout American history. The brief notes
that a donkey became the Democratic party’s symbol because someone called
Andrew Jackson a “jackass” and he, whose default mode was defiance, put the
creature on campaign posters. Entire American professions — e.g., newspaper
columnists — exist in part to disparage.
Many rock bands pick names obviously intended to
disparage or shock: Dead Kennedys, Dying Fetus, Sex Pistols, etc. Does the
title of the best-selling book Hillbilly
Elegy disparage a group? The Cato/Deplorables brief says: “One of this
brief’s authors is a cracker (as distinct from a hillbilly) who grew up near
Atlanta, but he wrote this sentence, so we can get away with saying that.” Then
comes a footnote: “But he only moved to Atlanta when he was 10 and doesn’t have
a Southern accent — and modern Atlanta isn’t really part of the South — so
maybe we can’t.” Furthermore, the lead counsel on the brief “is a
Russian-Jewish émigré who’s now a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen. Can he make
borscht-belt jokes about Canuck frostbacks even though the first time he went
to shul was while clerking in Jackson, Mississippi?”
When the government registers a trademark, it is not
endorsing or subsidizing a product. It should not be allowed to use its power
to deny registration in order to discourage or punish the adoption of
controversial expressions. By registering trademarks, government confers a
benefit — a legal right — on those who hold them. Trademarks are speech. The
disparagement clause empowers the PTO to deny a benefit because of the
viewpoint of the speech. This is unconstitutional.
Trademarks are not commercial speech — essentially,
advertising — which is accorded less robust protection than that given to other
speech. Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor and one of The Slants’ lawyers,
correctly says the band’s name is expressive speech. The Asian-Americans of The
Slants agree. They say they adopted this name “to take on these stereotypes
that people have about us, like the slanted eyes, and own them.”
The PTO applies the disparagement clause by assessing
“what message the referenced group takes from the applicant’s [trade]mark in
the context of the applicant’s use” and denies registration “only if the
message received is a negative one.” The PTO, which has denied trademark
protection for The Slants, has given it to a band named N.W.A. which stands for
[a version of the N-word] Wit Attitudes.
The PTO’s decisions are unpredictable because they depend
on the agency speculating about what might be the feelings of others in
hypothetical circumstances. This vague and arbitrarily enforced law, if such it
can be called, chills speech by encouraging blandness.
The PTO last earned the nation’s attention, if not its
approbation, in 2014, when it denied protection to the name of the Washington
Redskins, in spite of polls showing that 90 percent of Native Americans were
not offended by the name and only 18 percent of “nonwhite football fans”
favored changing it. Now the PTO sees a national problem in provocative,
naughty, childish, or tasteless band names. By doing this the PTO encourages
something of which there already is an annoying surfeit — the belief that speech
should be regulated hither and yon in order to preserve the serenity of those
Americans who are most easily upset.
No comments:
Post a Comment