教育怎麽講粗話。剛看了個新聞,US Senate終於也開始用profane language了。你們猜猜,下麵這個說的是哪個(些

來源: 2019-05-01 09:24:54 [] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (8560 bytes)

Earlier in the hearing, government attorney Malcolm L. Stewart had settled on a wordy euphemism: "the profane past participle form of a well-known word of profanity and perhaps the paradigmatic word of profanity in our language."

要想知道全景,看下去吧。

Justices Avoid Foul Language, Point To Inconsistency

Law360 (April 15, 2019, 4:46 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case challenging a federal ban on "scandalous" trademarks, during which the justices avoided using dirty words but voiced concern about the "erratic" way the rule has been enforced.

During the hourlong hearing, the justices artfully dodged saying the word "Fuct" — the phonetically profane name of an apparel brand at the center of a closely watched case over whether a federal ban on offensive trademark registrations violates the First Amendment.

Instead, they focused on sharply questioning both sides, including pressing the government to explain why the rule has been enforced with what Justice Neil Gorsuch referred to as a "shocking" level of inconsistency by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.During the hourlong hearing, the justices artfully dodged saying the word "Fuct" — the phonetically profane name of an apparel brand at the center of a closely watched case over whether a federal ban on offensive trademark registrations violates the First Amendment.

"How is a person who wants to get a mark supposed to tell what the PTO is going to do?" Justice Gorsuch asked. "Is it a flip of the coin?"

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg echoed that concern, noting that some offensive terms have been refused — paradoxically — because they were too similar to other lewd terms that had already been registered. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said "erratic or inconsistent" application seemed "inevitable" if the court eventually sides with the government.

Such tough questioning for the government was expected. Less than two years ago, the high court ruled in Matal v. Tam  that a very similar ban, on the registration of trademarks that "disparage" people, violated the First Amendment by restricting speech. Many experts have predicted the current case will go the same way.

But the justices also had hard questions for an attorney representing Erik Brunetti, the designer behind the Fuct brand, hinting that they are at least entertaining the idea that the two rules can be treated differently.

They repeatedly questioned whether a ban on dirty words might be a less serious burden on free speech than the ban on disparaging trademarks that the court struck down in 2017. Where that rule had been an egregious First Amendment violation known as viewpoint restriction, the justices wondered if the ban on profanity might be more neutral and less problematic.

"Why can't the government say, no, we're not going to give you space on our public registry for words that we find are not acceptable?" Justice Sonya Sotomayor asked.

Some of the justices questioned whether it should be considered a speech restriction at all.

"Why isn't it a government benefit and why can't the people choose to withhold the benefit on the basis that there are certain words that are profane and that we, as a matter of civility in our culture, would like to see less of rather than more of?" Justice Gorsuch asked.

Through the entire hearing, the justices avoided saying "Fuct" or any of the other "scandalous" terms that might be registered as trademarks if the court strikes down the ban.

"I don't want to go through the examples," Justice Gorsuch said at one point, drawing laughter in the court room. "I really don't want to do that."

Earlier in the hearing, government attorney Malcolm L. Stewart had settled on a wordy euphemism: "the profane past participle form of a well-known word of profanity and perhaps the paradigmatic word of profanity in our language."

A ruling is expected before the end of the term in June.

Brunetti was represented by John R. Sommer.

The government was represented by Malcolm L. Stewart of the U.S. Department of Justice's Solicitor General's Office.

The case is Iancu v. Brunetti, case number 18-302, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

--Editing by Marygrace Murphy.

 



斯坦福工作10年後,她告訴家長養育孩子這3條紅線不能碰

美國孩子要看的8000本學科閱讀書單裏藏著什麽秘密?

The Land of Stories紅透全球 90後天才作家代表作

好書推薦:I Survived 係列- 理解災難,理解曆史,還是逃生指南!

《推介》給全職推爸推媽推薦兩本爬藤指南書

讓孩子愛上閱讀,那些必須收藏的兒童經典讀物

美國當下最流行的STEM玩具(4-15歲)

350萬美國讀者票選出:20本今年最受歡迎的書(組圖)

推薦適合小朋友看的英文繪本

好書推薦:“All the Light We Cannot See” by Anthony Doerr

推薦一本曆史小書,主要是歐洲史

2015年看的幾本書

我在北京霧霾時用這個麵具!

強力推薦的一本好書,家長不妨買一本來讀讀(圖)

家有5年級的男娃全家必看的一本書


減少疲勞:給網蟲們推薦一樣非常適用的東西

一個小小的的detector或許會挽救很多人的生命

正在看一本幫助男孩成長的書,一點筆記

推薦兩本新書,應該對孩子的思維很有幫助

給大家推薦一本書 希望培養孩子研究科學的家長看

推薦Wordly Wise 3000的書

猶太推兒經:看到B-,猶爸會不會怒發衝kipa?

強烈推薦給大人孩子都要讀:高效能孩子的七個習慣

推薦一本家有 Teenager 的好書

想知道如何進理想大學?推薦二本書,很有幫助

有關孩子閱讀,介紹一套相當不錯的書

推薦一本書 Gifted Lives by Joan Freeman

加跟帖:

  • 筆名:      密碼: 保持登錄狀態一個月,直到我退出登錄。
  • 標題:
  • 內容(可選項): [所見即所得|預覽模式] [HTML源代碼] [如何上傳圖片] [怎樣發視頻] [如何貼音樂]
回到頂部