Some musicians might have just shrugged at this point and changed their name to something innocuous (\" ... and here they are ... from Portland, Oregon ... THE PLANTS!\")<\/p>\n
The decision has led some so-called anti-PC crusaders to claim vindication, calling the ruling a mighty blow against those who believe that institutions have not just the right, but the responsibility to provide protections against hateful speech. They're wrongly using a case of a specific victory to make a general -- and ultimately, untenable -- claim.<\/p>\n
Yes, the Lanham Act is archaic and poorly written. The definition of \"scandalous, immoral or disparaging\" is subjective to the point of absurdity, and government institutions should be extremely wary of being put in the position of determining the meaning and application of any of these adjectives. What's a \"scandal\" in an era where we wake up cringing at presidential tweets every morning? Whose standards should be used to define \"immoral\"? And especially, what constitutes \"disparaging\" when the user of a term is also its typical target?<\/p>\n
The fact is, the context in which Tam and his bandmates are using Slant, as a conscious commentary on its legacy of harm, as a way of reclaiming it from that legacy, is not scandalous, nor immoral, nor disparaging. Yes, it challenges those who hear it, demanding awareness of the term's ugly roots and history. But the band is perfectly willing to provide the resources needed to share in that awareness. It's what they do: The band goes out of its way to play college campus and Asian-American festival gigs and is deeply involved in supporting and promoting social justice-related causes. <\/p>\n
Blanket rejection of the dirty laundry in our history is cultural erasure. Refusal to acknowledge that it's dirty, by claiming that all speech is the same, regardless of who's speaking and with what intent, is tantamount to declaring open season on marginalized groups and individuals. All Tam has ever asked is for the Patent and Trademark Organization to bring a \"culturally competent\" approach to their decision-making, and frankly, that's what we should ask of every government institution. <\/p>\n
The bottom line: Freedom of expression and protection of the oppressed can coexist, if people take the example set by The Slants and do the work to defend them both. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Go here to read the rest: Some musicians might have just shrugged at this point and changed their name to something innocuous (\" ... Continue reading
\nThe Slants show full meaning of free speech (opinion) - CNN.com - CNN<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"