4 ms·

Novel concept, my belief is there should not be any kind of test for which types of expressions should be "protected" or not... expression that everyone suppo

Novel concept, my belief is there should not be any kind of test for which types of expressions should be "protected" or not... expression that everyone supports generally does not need protection in the first place, so laws that protect only expression that is as broad appeal or support are pointless. protection of expression needs to be for things we dislike, despise or even find abhorrent, people that claim they support protection of expression but for only things they find value in are in reality declaring they do not support freedom of expression at all.

colechristensen 3y ago
So you’d be ok with someone using AI to generate an image of your self/spouse/child doing something unspeakably awful and putting it up on billboards around town with a suggestion that people take matters into their own hands? That’s “expression”. What I’m trying to do is come up with a hypothetical where you really would like there to be a test for what is and is not protected. The Supreme Court called spending money on political campaigns “expression” in the Citizens United decision, do you support that? You can call literally any act expression, the extreme of which is literally anarchy.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>The Supreme Court called spending money on political campaigns “expression” in the Citizens United decision, do you support that? Yes... I do. Why should Donald Trump be able to spend millions of his own money to create political speech, but I can not spend $1 along with 1 million of my friends to counter is. Contrary to what the common tag line is of "corporations are people now" the court recognized that corporations are made up of people, as such the people acting as a group ( corporation) are entitled to protections just as if they were acting alone as an individual. >>So you’d be ok with someone using AI to generate an image of your self/spouse/child doing something unspeakably awful and putting it up on billboards around town with a suggestion that people take matters into their own hands? Well that escalated quickly, that said in generally... I would probably consider that protected. The last part would be murky as I so recognize the "True Threat" doctrine, of course I am also a self defense absolutist along with a free expression absolutist, so if the hypothetical bill board expressed a true threat I believe it with in my ethical right to defend myself from that true threat.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Citizens united was clearly about expression as the term is commonly understood. Upholding the law would have given the government power to ban books, pamphlets, and most forms of communication commonly understood to be first amendment speech. Per the government's argument, "the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union." It wasn't some crazy hypothetical about violence being an act of personal expression, or something like that. It was about other people can organize to share verbal, written, and recorded political ideas. As with many Supreme Court rulings, the political spin far eclipsed the actual decision and arguments.
simiones 3y ago
You're choosing the wrong thing to start this crusade over. Trademark law is by far the most defensible form of intellectual property, since it is very clearly necessary for a decent economy. There is no world in which it would be better for anyone to be able to claim they are selling an iPhone with iPhone branding and everything over it while selling an old Alcatel feature phone. Also, all this case establishes is that there is no exception for comedy/sarcasm when it comes to a trademark copying someone else's trademark. It is actually very likely that the case will be won by Bad Spaniels on simpler grounds - that their trademark will not confuse anyone into thinking they are buying a Jack Daniels bottle. And that is the right thing that the courts should decide - but it was something that Bad Spaniels was trying to avoid.
- lahvak 3y ago
  > There is no world in which it would be better for anyone to be able to claim they are selling an iPhone with iPhone branding and everything over it while selling an old Alcatel feature phone. Except that it would not happen. In a word without trademark protection, people would be like "what the heck is an iPhone, what does it do?" because the word iPhone would have no meaning. You would have to sell based on capabilities, rather than brand name. There would have to be sufficiently strong laws against false advertising and deceptive marketing, but I can see number of advantages over the current system. I agree with the rest of your post. The whole case is increasingly looking like a successful publicity stunt by the two companies to me. I don't think I would know anything about Bad Spaniels otherwise, and while Jack Daniels is well known, the way addiction works I would not be surprised if a large number of people were hitting their local liqueur store after seeing this case on the news.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > In a word without trademark protection, people would be like "what the heck is an iPhone, what does it do?" because the word iPhone would have no meaning. You would have to sell based on capabilities, rather than brand name I am not aware of this ever having occurred across history. Instead, brands become personal. You don’t buy an iPhone, you buy master Tim Cook’s phone.

colechristensen 3y ago

So you’d be ok with someone using AI to generate an image of your self/spouse/child doing something unspeakably awful and putting it up on billboards around town with a suggestion that people take matters into their own hands? That’s “expression”. What I’m trying to do is come up with a hypothetical where you really would like there to be a test for what is and is not protected. The Supreme Court called spending money on political campaigns “expression” in the Citizens United decision, do you support that? You can call literally any act expression, the extreme of which is literally anarchy.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>The Supreme Court called spending money on political campaigns “expression” in the Citizens United decision, do you support that? Yes... I do. Why should Donald Trump be able to spend millions of his own money to create political speech, but I can not spend $1 along with 1 million of my friends to counter is. Contrary to what the common tag line is of "corporations are people now" the court recognized that corporations are made up of people, as such the people acting as a group ( corporation) are entitled to protections just as if they were acting alone as an individual. >>So you’d be ok with someone using AI to generate an image of your self/spouse/child doing something unspeakably awful and putting it up on billboards around town with a suggestion that people take matters into their own hands? Well that escalated quickly, that said in generally... I would probably consider that protected. The last part would be murky as I so recognize the "True Threat" doctrine, of course I am also a self defense absolutist along with a free expression absolutist, so if the hypothetical bill board expressed a true threat I believe it with in my ethical right to defend myself from that true threat.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Citizens united was clearly about expression as the term is commonly understood. Upholding the law would have given the government power to ban books, pamphlets, and most forms of communication commonly understood to be first amendment speech. Per the government's argument, "the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union." It wasn't some crazy hypothetical about violence being an act of personal expression, or something like that. It was about other people can organize to share verbal, written, and recorded political ideas. As with many Supreme Court rulings, the political spin far eclipsed the actual decision and arguments.

simiones 3y ago

You're choosing the wrong thing to start this crusade over. Trademark law is by far the most defensible form of intellectual property, since it is very clearly necessary for a decent economy. There is no world in which it would be better for anyone to be able to claim they are selling an iPhone with iPhone branding and everything over it while selling an old Alcatel feature phone. Also, all this case establishes is that there is no exception for comedy/sarcasm when it comes to a trademark copying someone else's trademark. It is actually very likely that the case will be won by Bad Spaniels on simpler grounds - that their trademark will not confuse anyone into thinking they are buying a Jack Daniels bottle. And that is the right thing that the courts should decide - but it was something that Bad Spaniels was trying to avoid.

lahvak 3y ago
> There is no world in which it would be better for anyone to be able to claim they are selling an iPhone with iPhone branding and everything over it while selling an old Alcatel feature phone. Except that it would not happen. In a word without trademark protection, people would be like "what the heck is an iPhone, what does it do?" because the word iPhone would have no meaning. You would have to sell based on capabilities, rather than brand name. There would have to be sufficiently strong laws against false advertising and deceptive marketing, but I can see number of advantages over the current system. I agree with the rest of your post. The whole case is increasingly looking like a successful publicity stunt by the two companies to me. I don't think I would know anything about Bad Spaniels otherwise, and while Jack Daniels is well known, the way addiction works I would not be surprised if a large number of people were hitting their local liqueur store after seeing this case on the news.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > In a word without trademark protection, people would be like "what the heck is an iPhone, what does it do?" because the word iPhone would have no meaning. You would have to sell based on capabilities, rather than brand name I am not aware of this ever having occurred across history. Instead, brands become personal. You don’t buy an iPhone, you buy master Tim Cook’s phone.