Anti-Government Speech Is Still Protected Speech: Rutherford Institute Challenges Law Allowing Gov’t to Censor Speech It Finds Distasteful | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Anti-Government Speech Is Still Protected Speech: Rutherford Institute Challenges Law Allowing Gov’t to Censor Speech It Finds Distasteful

Pushing back against a law that allows the government to censor speech it finds distasteful or immoral, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a federal statute that allows the government to reject trademark applications for “scandalous” brand names that some might find offensive. In this particular case, the government rejected as immoral or scandalous a trademark application for streetwear brand “FUCT” (an acronym for “FRIENDS U CAN’T TRUST”) that serves as artist Erik Brunetti’s commentary on the need to challenge government authority and societal assumptions. In an amicus brief filed with the Court in Iancu v. Brunetti, Rutherford Institute attorneys contend that the statute violates the most fundamental First Amendment guarantees by investing the government with the power to act as an arbiter of good taste and censor speech it finds offensive or with which it disagrees.

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA