The Federal Trademark Office Won’t Protect Our Band’s Name, The Slants, Because It Says the Name Is Racist. We’re All Asian-American, By the Way.
I believe in the culture of untrammeled free speech.
I don’t block or unfriend people I disagree with on social media. I actively engage with them. Despite the prevailing advice, I read the comments section. It isn’t out of a hope that I’ll find a source of deep insight on complex issues. I do it because I believe it is important to connect with others who hold opposing beliefs. To me, an open exchange of ideas, even when I personally disagree with a viewpoint, is an integral part of living in a free democracy.
That’s what makes it all the more frustrating that I’ve spent almost a quarter of my life fighting the government simply because they don’t think it is appropriate for an Asian-American band to use the term “slant.” Today I take all the way to the Supreme Court.
Eight years ago, I applied to register the trademark for my anti-racist dance/rock band, The Slants. After Googling us, the United States Patent and Trademark Office determined our name was a slur in this context because we are Asian-American. Because the term “slant” is disparaging to persons of Asian descent, they told us that they were unable to register our band name.
We were actually singled out because of our identity, with the implication being that an all-white group could have gotten the trademark because the examiner wouldn’t have “figured out” it was a racial thing by Googling it. In the name of protecting us against racism, they denied us rights based on race.
The government’s main argument for the denial is also their weakest. Not being granted a trademark registration doesn’t mean that I can’t use the name, it just means that I can’t fully protect it. And, as the government itself admits, it still doesn’t stop hate speech from occurring. Rather it simply gives the government unfettered power to determine who can have access to trademark registration and who can’t.
By calling our band The Slants, we were engaging in a process of self-empowerment called reappropriation, where we take back the meaning of harmful terms to reduce their sting. It’s an effective way to create social change, especially in the arts. However, it is something that has baffled the trademark office, which has led to incredible inconsistent and subjective laws. They have been all over the place with terms like queer, bitch, Jesus freak, or any other kind of identifier that is used in both a positive or negative way.
The government claims that people can appeal decisions they feel are wrong. But the reality is that no one has ever been completely successful in an appeal, no matter how much evidence they have on their side.
Take for example San Francisco’s social justice group, Dykes on Bikes. After years of battling, the group finally won trademark registration for the words “Dykes on Bikes.” However, two years later, the Trademark Office again rejected an application to register the Dykes on Bikes logo — and they were back at square one.
As you may have figured out already, this outdated trademark law affects some groups more than others. It has been used primarily against communities of color, women, and LGBTQ people — especially those who engage in reappropriation. The result is that groups who are already often silenced by majority institutions are then unduly burdened with expensive fees and an endless appeal process that doesn’t actually result in justice. Most of us don’t have endless resources to fight in court — unlike the Washington football team — and many of us have given up or had to change the name of our businesses, nonprofit organizations, and logos.
When the government tries to play language police they are bound to mistakes that threaten freedom of speech and expression. It is undeniable that a person’s quality of life, their opportunities, and their rights may hinge on their identity — and it is time the Trademark Office figured this out.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.