|
Powercrazy posted:My disgust with current intellectual property law and disdain of corporate branding doesn't preclude me from calling out attempts at forcing a particular ~societal ideal~ using those systems. yes, it really is despicable that people are using the legal system to prevent organizations from profiting on the use of offensive racial slurs. how dare they take my valuable brand identity as the representative of Lazy Darkie Watermelon Soda "how will i know that Pears' Soap is a superior brand if i can't allude to how it cleanses the very soul of the heathen bushman" -Powercrazy boner confessor fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 27, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I assume you aren't familiar with Guan Yu? Because only people who aren't familiar with him would ascribe racism to dressing up like him, which was exactly the point I was making by specifically choosing him to dress up as, even going so far as to explicitly exclude "yellow-face" which would be racist. I wasnt making reference to that and don't care. What I was making reference to was your eagerness not to care about an NFL team being called the equivalent of "The Darkies." Because SJW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I wasnt making reference to that and don't care. What I was making reference to was your eagerness not to care about an NFL team being called the equivalent of "The Darkies." Because SJW. Oh he totally cares about the feather-Indian's feelings, as any decent person would, he just doesn't like the societal push to make it difficult to profit off the use of a corporate brand that is a racial insult because we all know that's just a bare few steps away from Orwellian restrictions on speech and thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I wasnt making reference to that and don't care. What I was making reference to was your eagerness not to care about an NFL team being called the equivalent of "The Darkies." Because SJW. Not SJW, but free speech, or rather as I like to refer to it "The Right to Offend." Popular Thug Drink posted:yes, it really is despicable that people are using the legal system to prevent organizations from profiting on the use of offensive racial slurs. how dare they take my valuable brand identity as the representative of Lazy Darkie Watermelon Soda You sure you didn't get me mixed up with your roommate again?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:You sure you didn't get me mixed up with your roommate again? i might have, you use functionally identical arguments do you start muttering under your breath about terrible service the minute you're greeted by a non-white waitress?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
What kind of chilling effect can we expect to take place, should this decision be upheld? Also, considering that trademarks are issued at the discretion of the federal government and do not represent expression so much as the legal protection of expression against infringement by competitors, does the patent office really have an obligation to sign off on any drat fool thing that crosses their desk in the name of Free Speech?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yes, it really is despicable that people are using the legal system to prevent organizations from profiting on the use of offensive racial slurs. how dare they take my valuable brand identity as the representative of Lazy Darkie Watermelon Soda Not every moral wrong needs to have a law to "fix" it, especially if that law is vague and can easily be used for ill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Not SJW, but free speech, or rather as I like to refer to it "The Right to Offend." This line stands out to me more than anything else you've posted. Can you elaborate? If you said something that offends me - does my defense not count as free speech?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:What kind of chilling effect can we expect to take place, should this decision be upheld? Well sort of. You can trademark phrases, for example "I'm lovin' it." Armani posted:This line stands out to me more than anything else you've posted. Can you elaborate? If you said something that offends me - does my defense not count as free speech? Sure it would why wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It's not the people who understand and accept cultural appropriation who are getting upset itt though OP features two people upset about it. If some people ITT are oversensitive then others must be narcissistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Not SJW, but free speech, or rather as I like to refer to it "The Right to Offend." Putting it like that is a pretty revealing way to do it. Armani posted:This line stands out to me more than anything else you've posted. Can you elaborate? If you said something that offends me - does my defense not count as free speech? Yes but he'll complain about it and never, ever see the irony.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Putting it like that is a pretty revealing way to do it. Yea. I really think it's a good way to get the point across since people have these weird projections about how others handle criticism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Well sort of. You can trademark phrases, for example "I'm lovin' it." While one could make the argument that "I'm lovin' it" is deceptive inasmuch as it's questionable that anyone has ever truly "loved" their experience at McDonalds, I don't think it violates the Lanham act. The issue I feel is that suggesting that trademarks fall under free speech also suggests that not only does one possess the right to freedom of expression, one also possess the right to exclusivity of expression. Which is such a troubling reading that I would be completely unsurprised to see it come out of the Roberts court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:While one could make the argument that "I'm lovin' it" is deceptive inasmuch as it's questionable that anyone has ever truly "loved" their experience at McDonalds, I don't think it violates the Lanham act. No it doesn't, it implies the government can't give out favors with unconstitutional conditions. What if trademarks were refused to, say, D donors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Yea. I really think it's a good way to get the point across since people have these weird projections about how others handle criticism. No, I mean talking about free speech as if it's your license to be a dick says a lot about you. Yes, you get to be a jerk, that doesn't make it admirable quality and it certainly doesn't protect you from people responding to the giant douche you're being.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:No it doesn't, it implies the government can't give out favors with unconstitutional conditions. What if trademarks were refused to, say, D donors? Where on earth are you getting "special favors" from? Are you suggesting that there is, in fact, a constitutional right to exclusivity of expression?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Where on earth are you getting "special favors" from? Are you suggesting that there is, in fact, a constitutional right to exclusivity of expression? No there isn't, that's the point. The government isn't obligated to issue trademarks, but that doesn't mean they can be handed out in a discriminatory manner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:No there isn't, that's the point. The government isn't obligated to issue trademarks, but that doesn't mean they can be handed out in a discriminatory manner. It's only discriminatory to the extent it was evaluated, in light of complaints from the Native American community, and found to be in violation of the Lanham Act's provisions concerning denigration. You make it sound as if the patent board yanked the trademark because they root for the Cowboys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:It's only discriminatory to the extent it was evaluated, in light of complaints from the Native American community, and found to be in violation of the Lanham Act's provisions concerning denigration. You make it sound as if the patent board yanked the trademark because they root for the Cowboys. And that section of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional. The government is, unfortunately, not obligated to give out a basic income. Are they allowed to give one to everyone who doesn't criticize the government?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
And why is it unconstitutional to not provide legal protection against imitation and infringement for trademarks that are deceptive or derogatory? This is a serious question because it sounds to me that you're suggesting the government is required, by the Bill of Rights no less, to enforce exclusivity of speech. Do I have the right to trademark the phrase God Hates Fags and then issue a C/D to the Westboro Bapist Church? Because if I do, uh, seriously let's get something going here im serious as a heart attack. paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:And why is it unconstitutional to not provide legal protection against imitation and infringement for trademarks that are deceptive or derogatory? This is a serious question because it sounds to me that you're suggesting the government is required, by the Bill of Rights no less, to enforce exclusivity of speech. The government is required to not enforce trademarks in an unconstitutionally discriminatory manner. It's not that I give a poo poo about trademark here, it's that it's an area where you can't trust the government to be able to get the decisions "right". See also The Slants case that I posted earlier. Sadly no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
You keep saying it's discriminatory but I honestly am not seeing discrimination against anything except people who violate existing laws. Is it discriminatory for the EPA to fine a factory for dumping waste products into a lake? Again, are you suggesting that it is unconstitutional to not enforce deceptive or derogatory trademarks?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
The problem with the Redskins has little to do with cultural appropriation. It has to do with derogatory speech. That's why the Indians are bad, the Redskins are worse, and the Braves aren't that bad really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:No, I mean talking about free speech as if it's your license to be a dick says a lot about you. Where do you get the idea that I think free speech applies only to things I agree with? You, Thug Drink, and Paranoid Android have all independently claimed that Free Speech doesn't apply to criticism, which is weird, like you don't "get it" or something. Hence why I found it more instructive to refer to it as "The Right to Offend." It's basically this. I can say things that offend you, you can criticize those things as offensive, as racist, as ignorant, however you want. You also have no obligation to listen to me nor I to you. After that it gets complicated since legal actions by private entities can and do create a chilling effect on speech, something the government may be obligated to address. Regardless there is a lot of nuance and caselaw about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:You keep saying it's discriminatory but I honestly am not seeing discrimination against anything except people who violate existing laws. Is it discriminatory for the EPA to fine a factory for dumping waste products into a lake? Again, are you suggesting that it is unconstitutional to not enforce deceptive or derogatory trademarks? I pass a law where everyone gets a $20k stipend per year. However, the stipend is forfeited if you publicly criticize the government. Enforcing that is following the law, but unconstitutionally discriminatory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:The government is required to not enforce trademarks in an unconstitutionally discriminatory manner. you keep throwing unconstitional around like this is the finding of a court and not an opinion you share with the ACLU Powercrazy posted:Where do you get the idea that I think free speech applies only to things I agree with? You, Thug Drink, and Paranoid Android have all independently claimed that Free Speech doesn't apply to criticism, which is weird, like you don't "get it" or something. business activity is not free speech hth this is why you can't claim magic herbs cure cancer under the first amendement
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Do I have the right to trademark the phrase God Hates Fags and then issue a C/D to the Westboro Bapist Church? Because if I do, uh, seriously let's get something going here im serious as a heart attack. I don't know actually. Maybe, but then again maybe not because of the same reasoning that people are using to support the USPO decision. (there may be other criteria that exempts it as well, I'm not a copyright expert.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:The problem with the Redskins has little to do with cultural appropriation. It has to do with derogatory speech. That's why the Indians are bad, the Redskins are worse, and the Braves aren't that bad really. we got derailed but the acute problem of associating your team's brand with savage native stereotypes is that it perpetuates the image of native americans as primitive and violent. the analogy would be the Washington Gangbanger Thugs This is why the Florida Seminoles aren't that bad, because they refer to a local tribe, their mascot is an actual guy (war chief Osceola) and they sought the consent of tribal leadership. contrast this with the Redskins, who use an actual literal slur for a name
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:business activity is not free speech hth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_v._Virginia
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
thanks for posting the first thing you googled that isn't really appropriate to the topic at hand, i appreciate your effort http://www.law360.com/articles/509031/ftc-says-1st-amendment-doesn-t-shield-pom-s-health-claims
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Yes free speech means you can "be a dick." It also means you can't ban anime, but apparently pointing out those things means I'm being a dick and defending anime. No, I have literally said it DOES apply to criticism. You're making a bizarre argument against a strawman because for some reason the Redskins is the hill you want to die on. quote:Hence why I found it more instructive to refer to it as "The Right to Offend." It's basically this. I can say things that offend you, you can criticize those things as offensive, as racist, as ignorant, however you want. You also have no obligation to listen to me nor I to you. Oh we want to get into caselaw, eh. Lets cover how free speech does allow for me to say racisms, but not criticism of the US government(the "fire in a crowded theater ruling")
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:business activity is not free speech hth I'm pretty sure can claim magic herbs cure cancer, but you can't sell or advertise them as a cure for cancer. It's an important distinction. But that is less a free speech issue and more an FDA/Consumer protection issue. But that is absolutely one of those strawmen that people like to construct about "Muh free speech," thanks for the example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I'm pretty sure can claim magic herbs cure cancer, but you can't sell or advertise them as a cure for cancer. It's an important distinction. But that is less a free speech issue and more an FDA/Consumer protection issue. But that is absolutely one of those strawmen that people like to construct about "Muh free speech," thanks for the example. and the refusal to protect the trademark of Chinese Laundryman brand dish soap isn't a consumer protection issue?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I pass a law where everyone gets a $20k stipend per year. However, the stipend is forfeited if you publicly criticize the government. Enforcing that is following the law, but unconstitutionally discriminatory. Except that law is blatantly targeted at a group of people: dissidents. Saying that "people who might potentially at some point in the future register an offensive or deceptive trademark" constitutes an equivalent group is ridiculous. You might as well say that speeding tickets are discriminatory. You don't have the right to drive in excess of the speed limit, nor do you have the right to exclusivity of speech. paranoid randroid fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Holy poo poo "unconstitutionally discriminatory" isn't even a thing, unless it's being used to say " discriminating on an unconstitutional basis". There's nothing wrong with discrimination on its own, the negative part derives from the basis of the discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Aren't some people arguing that oppressed people should have exclusivity of expression IRT their cultural referents? (Whether enforced by government or social norms)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
I think people are arguing that cultural appropriation can be a bad thing, and a bunch of people are like "nuh uh it isn't even a thing".
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
And then jumping straight to "Well it's not illegal so I guess you want to DESTROY FREE SPEECH FOREVER THEN HUH?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Where does criticism becomes censorship? Since that is a fuzzy line, I like to ensure I'm as far away from censorship as possible. If that means people are offended, so be it. Were you upset when Quaker changed the Aunt Jemima logo in 1989?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
Is an acceptable definition of cultural appropriation "infringement on the expressive exclusivity of oppressed people over their cultural referents"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 23:14
|
|