I was surprised to see Justice Alito joining the Supreme Court majority in Iancu v. Brunetti today. Seriously, dude, not one living human believes you, including your own customers. This is a trademark case. The U.S. Trademark Office rejected a trademark for the brand "FUCT" because of a law (the Lanham Act) that says trademarks should not be granted for "immoral or scandalous matter." The guy who runs FUCT insists that it isn't obscene, and actually you're supposed to pronounce it by spelling it out: F-U-C-T. The U.S. Supreme Court decided today, 6-3, that (1) hahahaha nobody believes you, dude, and (2) nevertheless, this law violates the First Amendment. Therefore, the trademark must be granted to FUCT. Justice Alito joined that decision. But this struck me as odd. Alito is the Supreme Court's obscenity-hater-in-chief and its champion against moral relativism. In
Alito's Concurrence in FUCT Case
Alito's Concurrence in FUCT Case
Alito's Concurrence in FUCT Case
I was surprised to see Justice Alito joining the Supreme Court majority in Iancu v. Brunetti today. Seriously, dude, not one living human believes you, including your own customers. This is a trademark case. The U.S. Trademark Office rejected a trademark for the brand "FUCT" because of a law (the Lanham Act) that says trademarks should not be granted for "immoral or scandalous matter." The guy who runs FUCT insists that it isn't obscene, and actually you're supposed to pronounce it by spelling it out: F-U-C-T. The U.S. Supreme Court decided today, 6-3, that (1) hahahaha nobody believes you, dude, and (2) nevertheless, this law violates the First Amendment. Therefore, the trademark must be granted to FUCT. Justice Alito joined that decision. But this struck me as odd. Alito is the Supreme Court's obscenity-hater-in-chief and its champion against moral relativism. In