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
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.
