Government-Sanctioned Speech, Amicus brief in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Amanda Blackhorse

November 06, 2015

The Rutherford Institute has asked a federal appeals court to reject a lower court ruling that confers sweeping power on the government to police private ideas and equates a trademark registration with a form of government-sanctioned speech. Weighing in before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Amanda Blackhorse, et al., attorneys for The Rutherford Institute and The Cato Institute argue that a district court order allowing the government to cancel the federal trademark registration of the NFL Redskins and refuse registration to other applications it deems “offensive” constitutes blatant content and viewpoint discrimination and imposes a “hecklers veto” on speech that violates the First Amendment’s protection of even unpopular speech.

Download the brief
http://rutherford.org/files_images/general/11-06-2015_Redskins-Amicus-Brief.pdf

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/legal_features/rutherford_amicus_brief_in_pro_football_inc._v._amanda_blackhorse

Advertisements