Let us wait and see how they feel about the pending cases against the Washington Redskins.
Via NY Times:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed core free-speech principles in two cases on Monday, both decided without dissent. It also took on a major case about partisan gerrymandering.
FREE SPEECH In Matal v. Tam, the justices ruled that the government can’t pick and choose which trademarks it registers based on whether they offend certain people or groups. The case was brought by the Slants, an Asian-American dance-rock band that had chosen its name — a familiar slur against people of Asian descent — to defuse its negative power. The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the name under a provision in a 70-year-old federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that “disparage” any “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the law violates a “bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” That’s the right call. The First Amendment bars the government from discriminating among speakers based on their viewpoints. In this case, the Trademark Office did that by blocking only registrations for trademarks it determined to have negative connotations. The free-speech clause doesn’t apply to the government’s own speech, but registered trademarks can’t be put in that category — otherwise the government would have to argue that it endorses each of the more than two million trademarks it has already registered.