> Do we want to be in a society where only things deemed non-offensive are protected? There are already many limitations on truly free speech, as there should

> Do we want to be in a society where only things deemed non-offensive are protected? There are already many limitations on truly free speech, as there should be. Should this type of speech be limited? It's a valid question. My main objection in this thread was to the specific statement: "This is a win for a free society." It implies that the defense was fighting against a "free society." I'm saying that two people can disagree on this specific matter while both being in support of a "free society." There's no need to polarize this issue in terms of free vs. non-free. The trademark office interpreted the statute one way, the plaintiffs another way, it worked its way through the courts and the decision came down in the plaintiffs' favor, so the trademark office will change its interpretation. The system works. There's no need to villainize the trademark office for disagreeing on the interpretation of a statute that hadn't yet been clarified by the courts.