POPULARITY
2 episodes with Matal
3 episodes with Matal
3 episodes with Matal
3 episodes with Matal
2 episodes with Matal
2 episodes with Matal
2 episodes with Matal
2 episodes with Matal
2 episodes with Matal
L'artista abruzzese Lara Molino presenta "Mataléne" su Radio Delta 1 nell'intervista con Daniele Di Ianni.
The FIRE team discusses Tim Walz's controversial comments on hate speech and “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” We also examine California's AI deepfake laws, the punishment of tenured professors, and mask bans. Joining us are: Aaron Terr, FIRE's director of Public Advocacy; Connor Murnane, FIRE's Campus Advocacy chief of staff; and Adam Goldstein, FIRE's vice president of strategic initiatives. Read the transcript. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 01:51 Tim Walz's comments on hate speech and “shouting fire” 15:36 California's AI deepfake laws 32:05 Tenured professors punished for expression 54:27 Nassau County's mask ban 1:04:39 Outro Show notes: Court cases: Schenck v. United States (1919) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) Texas v. Johnson (1989) Snyder v. Phelps (2011) Matal v. Tam (2017) Virginia v. Black (2003) NAACP v. Alabama (1958) Kohls v. Bonta (this suit challenges the constitutionality of AB 2839 and AB 2655) (2024) G.B. et al. v. Nassau County et al. (this class action lawsuit alleges Nassau County's Mask Transparency Act is unconstitutional and discriminates against people with disabilities) (2024) Legislation: AB 2839 AB 2655 AB 1831 Title VI (Civil Rights Act of 1964) Section 230 (Communications Decency Act of 1996) Articles/Tweets: “This is amazing
Entrevista vinculada a temes d'actualitat, amb Pep Graell. podcast recorded with enacast.com
In this episode, host Tom Dunlap discusses the landmark Supreme Court case, Matal v. Tam, and its profound implications on trademark law and free speech. Through the story of Simon Tam and his band The Slants, Tom explores the journey of challenging the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act—a case that ultimately led to a unanimous Supreme Court decision supporting the right to re-appropriate racially disparaging terms under the First Amendment. Join Tom as he unpacks the intricacies of trademark regulations, the concept of commercial speech, and how this case has reshaped legal precedents and cultural dialogues around offensive trademarks.
Ron Coleman joins me again, this time to talk about legal education and its impact on the practice of law, and the justice system in America. Ron Coleman is a Partner at the Dhillon Law Group and resident in its New York Metro office. Ron is a commercial litigator with extensive first-seat trial and appellate experience who focuses on torts of competition such as trademark infringement, unfair competition and consumer law.Besides his trademark work Ron is also known for his Internet-related and First Amendment advocacy, regarding both religious and free speech rights, including his representation of Simon Tam and “The Slants” in the watershed free speech case, Matal v. Tam, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition against registration of “disparaging” trademarks was unconstitutional.Having recently semi-retired his popular “Likelihood of Confusion” blog on trademark law, Ron is a popular influencer on Twitter with over 200,000 followers (@roncoleman) and hosts the ColemanNation video podcast which focuses on free expression, cancel culture and law. He attended Princeton University and Northwestern University School of Law.SUPPORT THIS CHANNELYour support makes my work possible. If you appreciate this content, please consider supporting me in one of the following ways:Join The Reason We Learn Community @WOKESCREEN : https://wokescreen.com/thereasonwelearn/Join The Reason We Parent - Parent Support Group: https://wokescreen.com/the-reason-we-...Hire me for consulting, tutoring and public speaking: https://thereasonwelearn.com Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/trwlPayPal: paypal.me/deborahfillmanPurchase TRWL Merch: https://store.wokescreen.com/the-reas...Purchase books from Heroes of Liberty with my referral link and get 10% off!https://heroesofliberty.com/?ref=Zqpq...#legaleducation #justicesystem #lawschool #education #civilrights #lawfare #harvard #activism--- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/debf/support Get full access to The Reason We Learn at thereasonwelearn.substack.com/subscribe
Ron Coleman is a Partner at the Dhillon Law Group and resident in its New York Metro office. Ron is a commercial litigator with extensive first-seat trial and appellate experience who focuses on torts of competition such as trademark infringement, unfair competition and consumer law.Besides his trademark work Ron is also known for his Internet-related and First Amendment advocacy, regarding both religious and free speech rights, including his representation of Simon Tam and “The Slants” in the watershed free speech case, Matal v. Tam, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition against registration of “disparaging” trademarks was unconstitutional.Having recently semi-retired his popular “Likelihood of Confusion” blog on trademark law, Ron is a popular influencer on Twitter with over 200,000 followers (@roncoleman) and hosts the ColemanNation video podcast which focuses on free expression, cancel culture and law. He attended Princeton University and Northwestern University School of Law.SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL:Your support makes my work possible. If you appreciate this content, please consider supporting me in one of the following ways:Join The Reason We Learn Community @WOKESCREEN : https://wokescreen.com/thereasonwelearn/Join The Reason We Parent - Parent Support Group: https://wokescreen.com/the-reason-we-...Hire me for consulting, tutoring and public speaking: https://thereasonwelearn.com Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/trwlPayPal: paypal.me/deborahfillmanPurchase TRWL Merch: https://store.wokescreen.com/the-reas...Purchase books from Heroes of Liberty with my referral link and get 10% off!https://heroesofliberty.com/?ref=Zqpq...--- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/debf/support Get full access to The Reason We Learn at thereasonwelearn.substack.com/subscribe
Ron is one of the best guests I've had the pleasure of having on my show. We discuss a variety of things including but not limited to his landmark SCOTUS case Matal v. Tam, Trademark/IP & AI, Censorship, J6 cases and how they've been handled, The Israel/Hamas conflict as well as the situation on college campuses with regards to vitriol toward Jewish people, and more. You can follow Ron on X @RonColeman but if you google him be sure to add "attorney" or you'll get the body builder. Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The amazing multi-talented Asian-American dance/rock band from Portland, OR The Slants talk about their latest release “The Band Played On” featuring the title track, “What Will People Say”, “Advocate”, “This is Who We Are”, “Family” and more! The Slants' leader Simon Tam with Joe X Jiang talk about how they got started, including the band name originating from an effort of reappropriation and source of a legal battle in 2019 in Matal vs. Tam in Supreme Court, their involvement in racial injustice work with the Asian-American community, plus their previous releases “Slanted: An American Rock Opera”, “The Band Who Must Not Be Named”, “Slanted Eyes Slanted Hearts”, “The Yellow Album” and more! Check out the amazing Portland rockers The Slants on all major streaming platforms and www.theslants.com today! #theslants #portland #oregon #asianamericanrock #thebandplayedon #simontam #joexjiang #fmaily #matalvstam #supremecourt #judgeruthginsburg #slantedanamericanrockopera #theyellowalbum #asianamericancommunity #spreaker #iheartradio #spotify #applemusic #youtube #anchorfm #bitchute #rumble #mikewagner #themikewagnershow #mikewagnertheslants #themikewagnershowtheslants --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/themikewagnershow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/themikewagnershow/support
The amazing multi-talented Asian-American dance/rock band from Portland, OR The Slants talk about their latest release “The Band Played On” featuring the title track, “What Will People Say”, “Advocate”, “This is Who We Are”, “Family” and more! The Slants' leader Simon Tam with Joe X Jiang talk about how they got started, including the band name originating from an effort of reappropriation and source of a legal battle in 2019 in Matal vs. Tam in Supreme Court, their involvement in racial injustice work with the Asian-American community, plus their previous releases “Slanted: An American Rock Opera”, “The Band Who Must Not Be Named”, “Slanted Eyes Slanted Hearts”, “The Yellow Album” and more! Check out the amazing Portland rockers The Slants on all major streaming platforms and www.theslants.com today! #theslants #portland #oregon #asianamericanrock #thebandplayedon #simontam #joexjiang #fmaily #matalvstam #supremecourt #judgeruthginsburg #slantedanamericanrockopera #theyellowalbum #asianamericancommunity #spreaker #iheartradio #spotify #applemusic #youtube #anchorfm #bitchute #rumble #mikewagner #themikewagnershow #mikewagnertheslants #themikewagnershowtheslants --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/themikewagnershow/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/themikewagnershow/support
The amazing multi-talented Asian-American dance/rock band from Portland, OR The Slants talk about their latest release “The Band Played On” featuring the title track, “What Will People Say”, “Advocate”, “This is Who We Are”, “Family” and more! The Slants' leader Simon Tam with Joe X Jiang talk about how they got started, including the band name originating from an effort of reappropriation and source of a legal battle in 2019 in Matal vs. Tam in Supreme Court, their involvement in racial injustice work with the Asian-American community, plus their previous releases “Slanted: An American Rock Opera”, “The Band Who Must Not Be Named”, “Slanted Eyes Slanted Hearts”, “The Yellow Album” and more! Check out the amazing Portland rockers The Slants on all major streaming platforms and www.theslants.com today! #theslants #portland #oregon #asianamericanrock #thebandplayedon #simontam #joexjiang #fmaily #matalvstam #supremecourt #judgeruthginsburg #slantedanamericanrockopera #theyellowalbum #asianamericancommunity #spreaker #iheartradio #spotify #applemusic #youtube #anchorfm #bitchute #rumble #mikewagner #themikewagnershow #mikewagnertheslants #themikewagnershowtheslants
Fe hecha canción es el programa de EWTN Radio Católica Mundial que promociona la música de los grupos y cantantes católicos del mundo hispano. Desde el Estudio 3 de Radio Católica Mundial, Douglas Archer comparte con ustedes una hora cargada de canciones, incluyendo las últimas novedades y estrenos, y con invitados que cantan o tocan en vivo.
JOE COHN (CONE) FROM "FIRE" "FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS & EXPRESSION" Joe Cohn serves as Legislative and Policy Director overseeing that departments team of attorneys and staff tasked with the duties of monitoring and engaging in legislation and regulatory matters. Under his leadership, FIRE has secured numerous victories for free speech and due process issues at the local, state and federal level. WHAT IS "HATE SPEECH" Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as "hate speech" in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint. In academic circles, there has been debate over freedom of speech, hate speech, and hate speech legislation. Other forms of speech have lesser protection under court interpretations of the First Amendment, including commercial speech, "fighting words", and obscenity. Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a specific person or group.
This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Thursday, February 16th, 2023. CrossPolination Ad Did you guys know that you can sign up for a club membership, a magazine subscription, AND tickets to the Ark Encounter all in one place?! That’s some crosspollination right there! Fightlaughfeast.com is your one-stop-shop for everything CrossPolitic. Here’s what you should do. You should sign up for a club membership, then sign up for the Ark Encounter for a $100 discount off of your purchase, and then sign up for a magazine subscription. We’ve even got our own social media platform built into our website now for our club members… once you’re a club member, you’ll get access to exclusive content like a Bible Study series with Pastor Toby, a special series with New Saint Andrews President, Dr. ben Merkle, all of our back-stage content, and all of our conference talks, with more to come! There really hasn’t been a better time to be a CrossPolitic Club Member. Sign up today, at fightlaughfeast.com. That’s fightlaughfeast.com. https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-buffalo-supermarket-shooter-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-without-parole?utm_campaign=64487 Buffalo supermarket shooter sentenced to life in prison without parole Buffalo supermarket mass shooter Payton Gendron was sentenced to life in prison without parole on Wednesday after he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and domestic terrorism, among other charges. Gendron killed 10 people in a racially motivated massacre in Buffalo, New York last year. He pleaded guilty to all 15 counts brought by Buffalo prosecutors. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/first-amendment-court-blocks/2023/02/15/id/1108781/ Federal Judge Blocks N.Y. Law Mandating Social Media 'Hateful Conduct' Policies A federal judge has blocked New York's new law that prohibits hate speech on social media, ruling the measure violates the Constitution's protection of free speech. U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. on Tuesday, in Volokh v. James, sided with the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog and Peter Thiel-backed video site Rumble Inc., which claimed the law will hurt online services and silence disfavored viewpoints. New York Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul in June signed a legislative package that included new regulations governing how social media platforms police what the law calls "hateful conduct." The "Hateful Conduct Law" required that social media websites make it easy for users to report "incidents of hateful conduct," and to respond to complaints explaining how the matter is being handled. Carter began his ruling by citing the Supreme Court's 2017 Matal v. Tam decision in which the justices unanimously ruled that a federal law prohibiting trademark names that disparage others was unconstitutional because "speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend." After calling the law "well-intentioned," Carter explained his decision. "Yet, the First Amendment protects from state regulation speech that may be deemed 'hateful' and generally disfavors regulation of speech based on its content unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest," Carter wrote in his decision. "The Hateful Conduct Law both compels social media networks to speak about the contours of hate speech and chills the constitutionally protected speech of social media users, without articulating a compelling governmental interest or ensuring that the law is narrowly tailored to that goal. "In the face of our national commitment to the free expression of speech, even where that speech is offensive or repugnant, Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, prohibiting enforcement of the law, is GRANTED." Carter said the law overreached. "The Hateful Conduct Law does not merely require that a social media network provide its users with a mechanism to complain about instances of 'hateful conduct,'" Carter wrote. "The law also requires that a social media network must make a ‘policy’ available on its website which details how the network will respond to a complaint of hateful content. "In other words, the law requires that social media networks devise and implement a written policy — i.e., speech." https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/02/14/exclusive-secret-china-donations-to-university-of-delaware-soared-after-the-opening-of-the-biden-institute/ Secret China Donations to University of Delaware Soared After the Opening of the Biden Institute A second university has been found to have received more than $6.7 million in anonymous donations from China, including direct funding from the Chinese government, after Joe Biden set up a program there in his name, according to a Government Accountability Institute analysis. The revelation comes following reporting that anonymous China-linked funds flowing to the University of Pennsylvania almost tripled after the inauguration of the Penn-Biden Center, which illegally housed classified documents. On March 13, 2017, less than seven weeks after concluding his second term as vice president, Joe Biden announced the founding of the Biden Institute at his home state’s University of Delaware (UD). According to the announcement, part of Biden’s “vision for the institute is an annual conference at UD, similar to the World Economic Forum or the Aspen Institute.” At the time of Biden’s announcement at UD, multiple members of the Biden family were working on deals worth millions of dollars with foreign businessmen linked to the highest levels of Chinese intelligence. And Biden’s other university program at the University of Pennsylvania was apparently housing classified documents from the Obama-Biden administration in an improper way. Prior to hosting the Biden Institute, UD had never disclosed any funding from China. One year later (and just two months after the Penn Biden center opened its D.C. office), anonymous donations from China to UD skyrocketed. The first payment came in April 2018 in the amount of $3,204,070 from an anonymous donor in China. In December 2018, another anonymous donation from China arrived for $1,869,515. A third anonymous China-linked payment, for $624,904, arrived in December 2019. In 2020, the year that Biden was campaigning for president, anonymous Chinese state-linked entities sent three more payments totaling $1,005,761 to UD, the bulk of which arrived after Biden had been declared the president-elect. Three of these donations from China—with a combined total of $1,005,761—were reported as coming from a “Foreign Government Source,” according to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) records assembled from information reported to the DOE by the University of Delaware. It should be noted that, according to the available records, none the donations from China to the University of Pennsylvania following the creation of the Penn Biden Center appear to have been reported to the DOE as coming from a “Foreign Government Source” — a fact which led at least one fact-checker to conclude that the Penn Biden Center was being unfairly labeled as “China-funded” because the influx of funding from China to UPenn following its establishment was not given this DOE identifier. However, three donations originating from China to the University of Delaware in the years following the launch of the Biden Institute clearly bear the “Foreign Government Source” identifier. The actual DOE record field for this identifier asks, “Is this funding from a government?” For these three donations, the answer supplied by the University of Delaware is “Yes,” as seen in the three images below taken from the DOE website (highlight added for emphasis). Neither the Biden Institute nor the UD have responded to requests to identify the Chinese donors or explain why the Chinese government decided to fund UD after the Biden Institute was created. Perhaps the most mysterious aspect of the Biden Institute is how it was conceived. The initial idea for Biden Institute at UD was apparently hatched by Joe’s son, Hunter Biden, while the elder Biden was still the vice president. In March 2016, Hunter Biden met with UD’s incoming president, Dr. Dennis Assanis, as Hunter and his business associates were making plans to create a “stage” to promote the “Biden brand,” emails from Hunter’s abandoned laptop show. Other emails on the laptop indicate that Hunter and his business associates were concerned about boosting Joe’s “future earnings potential,” while Joe was still the vice president. New Saint Andrews: Today’s culture shifts like sand, but New Saint Andrews College is established on Christ, the immovable rock. The college is a premier institution that forges evangelical leaders who don’t fear or hate the world. Guided by God’s word, equipped with the genius of classical liberal arts and God-honoring wisdom, with a faculty dedicated to academic rigor and to God’s kingdom, New Saint Andrews College offers an education that frees people. Logic and language, hard work and joyful courage, old books and godly professors — New Saint Andrews Colleges provides time-tested resources that can equip your student for any vocation. To find out more, visit: nsa.edu https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/14/south-dakota-bans-child-sex-changes-kristi-noem-transgender/ South Dakota Bans Child Sex Changes Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed legislation Monday banning both surgical and nonsurgical sex change procedures for minors. The “Help Not Harm” bill bars health care providers from prescribing minors puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or performing cross-sex surgeries on minors. Doctors found violating the law will have their medical licenses revoked. The move comes amid a broader push from red states to crack down on the procedures. Patients harmed by violations of the new law have three years, or until they turn 25, to seek civil damages; whichever date is later, according to the bill. The legislation takes effect July 1, and health care professionals may keep patients on cross-sex drug regimens through the end of the year if they determine it’s necessary to gradually wean them off the drugs for the sake of their health. While cross-sex genital surgeries are rare for minors, numerous clinics and hospitals offer puberty blockers, hormones and mastectomies to minors as part of the gender transition process; the procedures are still legal at the federal level and in most states.
This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Thursday, February 16th, 2023. CrossPolination Ad Did you guys know that you can sign up for a club membership, a magazine subscription, AND tickets to the Ark Encounter all in one place?! That’s some crosspollination right there! Fightlaughfeast.com is your one-stop-shop for everything CrossPolitic. Here’s what you should do. You should sign up for a club membership, then sign up for the Ark Encounter for a $100 discount off of your purchase, and then sign up for a magazine subscription. We’ve even got our own social media platform built into our website now for our club members… once you’re a club member, you’ll get access to exclusive content like a Bible Study series with Pastor Toby, a special series with New Saint Andrews President, Dr. ben Merkle, all of our back-stage content, and all of our conference talks, with more to come! There really hasn’t been a better time to be a CrossPolitic Club Member. Sign up today, at fightlaughfeast.com. That’s fightlaughfeast.com. https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-buffalo-supermarket-shooter-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-without-parole?utm_campaign=64487 Buffalo supermarket shooter sentenced to life in prison without parole Buffalo supermarket mass shooter Payton Gendron was sentenced to life in prison without parole on Wednesday after he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and domestic terrorism, among other charges. Gendron killed 10 people in a racially motivated massacre in Buffalo, New York last year. He pleaded guilty to all 15 counts brought by Buffalo prosecutors. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/first-amendment-court-blocks/2023/02/15/id/1108781/ Federal Judge Blocks N.Y. Law Mandating Social Media 'Hateful Conduct' Policies A federal judge has blocked New York's new law that prohibits hate speech on social media, ruling the measure violates the Constitution's protection of free speech. U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. on Tuesday, in Volokh v. James, sided with the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog and Peter Thiel-backed video site Rumble Inc., which claimed the law will hurt online services and silence disfavored viewpoints. New York Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul in June signed a legislative package that included new regulations governing how social media platforms police what the law calls "hateful conduct." The "Hateful Conduct Law" required that social media websites make it easy for users to report "incidents of hateful conduct," and to respond to complaints explaining how the matter is being handled. Carter began his ruling by citing the Supreme Court's 2017 Matal v. Tam decision in which the justices unanimously ruled that a federal law prohibiting trademark names that disparage others was unconstitutional because "speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend." After calling the law "well-intentioned," Carter explained his decision. "Yet, the First Amendment protects from state regulation speech that may be deemed 'hateful' and generally disfavors regulation of speech based on its content unless it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest," Carter wrote in his decision. "The Hateful Conduct Law both compels social media networks to speak about the contours of hate speech and chills the constitutionally protected speech of social media users, without articulating a compelling governmental interest or ensuring that the law is narrowly tailored to that goal. "In the face of our national commitment to the free expression of speech, even where that speech is offensive or repugnant, Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, prohibiting enforcement of the law, is GRANTED." Carter said the law overreached. "The Hateful Conduct Law does not merely require that a social media network provide its users with a mechanism to complain about instances of 'hateful conduct,'" Carter wrote. "The law also requires that a social media network must make a ‘policy’ available on its website which details how the network will respond to a complaint of hateful content. "In other words, the law requires that social media networks devise and implement a written policy — i.e., speech." https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/02/14/exclusive-secret-china-donations-to-university-of-delaware-soared-after-the-opening-of-the-biden-institute/ Secret China Donations to University of Delaware Soared After the Opening of the Biden Institute A second university has been found to have received more than $6.7 million in anonymous donations from China, including direct funding from the Chinese government, after Joe Biden set up a program there in his name, according to a Government Accountability Institute analysis. The revelation comes following reporting that anonymous China-linked funds flowing to the University of Pennsylvania almost tripled after the inauguration of the Penn-Biden Center, which illegally housed classified documents. On March 13, 2017, less than seven weeks after concluding his second term as vice president, Joe Biden announced the founding of the Biden Institute at his home state’s University of Delaware (UD). According to the announcement, part of Biden’s “vision for the institute is an annual conference at UD, similar to the World Economic Forum or the Aspen Institute.” At the time of Biden’s announcement at UD, multiple members of the Biden family were working on deals worth millions of dollars with foreign businessmen linked to the highest levels of Chinese intelligence. And Biden’s other university program at the University of Pennsylvania was apparently housing classified documents from the Obama-Biden administration in an improper way. Prior to hosting the Biden Institute, UD had never disclosed any funding from China. One year later (and just two months after the Penn Biden center opened its D.C. office), anonymous donations from China to UD skyrocketed. The first payment came in April 2018 in the amount of $3,204,070 from an anonymous donor in China. In December 2018, another anonymous donation from China arrived for $1,869,515. A third anonymous China-linked payment, for $624,904, arrived in December 2019. In 2020, the year that Biden was campaigning for president, anonymous Chinese state-linked entities sent three more payments totaling $1,005,761 to UD, the bulk of which arrived after Biden had been declared the president-elect. Three of these donations from China—with a combined total of $1,005,761—were reported as coming from a “Foreign Government Source,” according to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) records assembled from information reported to the DOE by the University of Delaware. It should be noted that, according to the available records, none the donations from China to the University of Pennsylvania following the creation of the Penn Biden Center appear to have been reported to the DOE as coming from a “Foreign Government Source” — a fact which led at least one fact-checker to conclude that the Penn Biden Center was being unfairly labeled as “China-funded” because the influx of funding from China to UPenn following its establishment was not given this DOE identifier. However, three donations originating from China to the University of Delaware in the years following the launch of the Biden Institute clearly bear the “Foreign Government Source” identifier. The actual DOE record field for this identifier asks, “Is this funding from a government?” For these three donations, the answer supplied by the University of Delaware is “Yes,” as seen in the three images below taken from the DOE website (highlight added for emphasis). Neither the Biden Institute nor the UD have responded to requests to identify the Chinese donors or explain why the Chinese government decided to fund UD after the Biden Institute was created. Perhaps the most mysterious aspect of the Biden Institute is how it was conceived. The initial idea for Biden Institute at UD was apparently hatched by Joe’s son, Hunter Biden, while the elder Biden was still the vice president. In March 2016, Hunter Biden met with UD’s incoming president, Dr. Dennis Assanis, as Hunter and his business associates were making plans to create a “stage” to promote the “Biden brand,” emails from Hunter’s abandoned laptop show. Other emails on the laptop indicate that Hunter and his business associates were concerned about boosting Joe’s “future earnings potential,” while Joe was still the vice president. New Saint Andrews: Today’s culture shifts like sand, but New Saint Andrews College is established on Christ, the immovable rock. The college is a premier institution that forges evangelical leaders who don’t fear or hate the world. Guided by God’s word, equipped with the genius of classical liberal arts and God-honoring wisdom, with a faculty dedicated to academic rigor and to God’s kingdom, New Saint Andrews College offers an education that frees people. Logic and language, hard work and joyful courage, old books and godly professors — New Saint Andrews Colleges provides time-tested resources that can equip your student for any vocation. To find out more, visit: nsa.edu https://dailycaller.com/2023/02/14/south-dakota-bans-child-sex-changes-kristi-noem-transgender/ South Dakota Bans Child Sex Changes Republican South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed legislation Monday banning both surgical and nonsurgical sex change procedures for minors. The “Help Not Harm” bill bars health care providers from prescribing minors puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or performing cross-sex surgeries on minors. Doctors found violating the law will have their medical licenses revoked. The move comes amid a broader push from red states to crack down on the procedures. Patients harmed by violations of the new law have three years, or until they turn 25, to seek civil damages; whichever date is later, according to the bill. The legislation takes effect July 1, and health care professionals may keep patients on cross-sex drug regimens through the end of the year if they determine it’s necessary to gradually wean them off the drugs for the sake of their health. While cross-sex genital surgeries are rare for minors, numerous clinics and hospitals offer puberty blockers, hormones and mastectomies to minors as part of the gender transition process; the procedures are still legal at the federal level and in most states.
We continue our week of LAL Classics with something very special from the archives: Norm's interview with legendary first amendment and trademark and intellectual property attorney, Ron Coleman. Ron is not only a partner at the esteemed Dhillon Law Group, but he is the host of is own successful audio-visual venture, The Coleman-Nation Podcast. The central question of this episode is this: can we long exist as a society if we lose our tradition in the roots of faith? Norm took great pleasure in Ron's willingness to share his commitment to Talmudic scholarship and the insight to be found embedded in what he terms the "codified fact patterns" of scripture. What is inspiration? What does it mean to be inspired? Is modern man inspired in his current state? Perhaps more importantly, can he be? Listen as Norm and Ron catalogue the the nihilistic trajectory of the current era which is marked by a sort of anarchy, and opine on the existential importance of common conceptions of right and consensus to civilized, well-functioning society. You'll also learn what a trademark is in less than 90 seconds and learn about Ron's representation before the Supreme Court of the United States in the Matal v. Tam trademark case that now defines legal precedent the country over. Follow Ron on Twitter @RonColeman, his podcast account @ColemanNation1, and his trademark blog @Likely2Confuse. Like, share, and subscribe! Norm is (usually) live every weekday from 12pm to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Rate Law and Legitimacy fifty-leven stars. And follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter!
We continue our week of LAL Classics with something very special from the archives: Norm's interview with legendary first amendment and trademark and intellectual property attorney, Ron Coleman. Ron is not only a partner at the esteemed Dhillon Law Group, but he is the host of is own successful audio-visual venture, The Coleman-Nation Podcast. The central question of this episode is this: can we long exist as a society if we lose our tradition in the roots of faith? Norm took great pleasure in Ron's willingness to share his commitment to Talmudic scholarship and the insight to be found embedded in what he terms the "codified fact patterns" of scripture. What is inspiration? What does it mean to be inspired? Is modern man inspired in his current state? Perhaps more importantly, can he be? Listen as Norm and Ron catalogue the the nihilistic trajectory of the current era which is marked by a sort of anarchy, and opine on the existential importance of common conceptions of right and consensus to civilized, well-functioning society. You'll also learn what a trademark is in less than 90 seconds and learn about Ron's representation before the Supreme Court of the United States in the Matal v. Tam trademark case that now defines legal precedent the country over. Follow Ron on Twitter @RonColeman, his podcast account @ColemanNation1, and his trademark blog @Likely2Confuse. Like, share, and subscribe! Norm is (usually) live every weekday from 12pm to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Rate Law and Legitimacy fifty-leven stars. And follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter!
Entrevista vinculada a temes d'actualitat, amb Pep Graell. podcast recorded with enacast.com
Hablamos con Javi Riera componente de la 'Ido Matal's Band`'que actúan esta noche en el marco de las 'Festes de la Terra'
Monica, Liz, Rebecca, and Alison review the case, Shurtleff v. City of Boston, in which the city of Boston denied a religious organization, Camp Constitution, its request to fly the Christian flag at city hall. The hosts discuss the free speech and religion clause arguments presented at oral arguments in December 2021. *Note, this episode was recorded prior to the Supreme Court handing down the decision on May 2, 2022. An update to this episode is forthcoming. Background Oral Arguments SCOTUS Blog Camp Constitution's Website Relevant Cases Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009) Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015) Matal v. Tam (2017) Check us out on Facebook and Twitter. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.
In which Matal realizes he has a double-edged sword.
Norm is joined in the first hour by Ron Coleman, a partner at the Dhillon Law Group and an absolute juggernaut of first amendment and trademark and intellectual property law, and a total constitutional scholar. Ron is the host of the Colemannation Podcast and is a must follow on Twitter @RonColeman. Norm and Ron begin this episode with a discussion of trademarks and the landmark ruling in Matal v. Tam several years ago. What's a trademark anyway? The Bird-McHale-esque duo continue use the Supreme Court's holding in Matal v. Tam to quickly transition into a broader conversation about the nature of free speech in the United States. Can we legislate morality? Ron's answer might surprise you. This is an instant classic. And a rare find for live radio broadcasts. Enjoy. Like, share, and subscribe! Stream Norm live every weekday from 12pm to 2pm at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter and tweet us your questions and comments!
Norm is joined in the first hour by Ron Coleman, a partner at the Dhillon Law Group and an absolute juggernaut of first amendment and trademark and intellectual property law, and a total constitutional scholar. Ron is the host of the Colemannation Podcast and is a must follow on Twitter @RonColeman. Norm and Ron begin this episode with a discussion of trademarks and the landmark ruling in Matal v. Tam several years ago. What's a trademark anyway? The Bird-McHale-esque duo continue use the Supreme Court's holding in Matal v. Tam to quickly transition into a broader conversation about the nature of free speech in the United States. Can we legislate morality? Ron's answer might surprise you. This is an instant classic. And a rare find for live radio broadcasts. Enjoy. Like, share, and subscribe! Stream Norm live every weekday from 12pm to 2pm at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter and tweet us your questions and comments!
La #medicinatradicional y natural mexicana ha sobrevivido cientos de años, el uso de las plantas, raíces, flores y otras cosas que nacen de la tierra sostienen la base de todos esos conocimientos, aunque son usadas para fines #medicinales también se usan con fines comestibles en platillos y agua, una de esas tantas opciones es el #matalí, pero ¿Qué es el matalí? Nosotros te lo contamos.
Spätestens mit dem Shift zum Dauer-Home-Office ist das Thema Psychologische Sicherheit in vielen Unternehmen in den Fokus gerückt. Denn mit fehlendem Kontakt zum Team schwindet oft auch der Glaube, Fragen zu stellen und Fehler machen zu dürfen - was Betroffene sehr belasten und nicht zuletzt auch zu schlechteren Arbeitsergebnissen führen kann. Wie also gegensteuern? Darüber spricht Dirk Schwendt in der 23. Folge der Lernkurve mit Ilhan Scheer, der bei Accenture die auf Psychologische Sicherheit spezialisierte Einheit fable+ leitet.
Les odyssées cinématographiques de Petr Václav – Il y a 100 ans naissait le peintre Bohumír Matal
Les odyssées cinématographiques de Petr Václav – Il y a 100 ans naissait le peintre Bohumír Matal
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit's failure to apply the Supreme Court's forum doctrine to the First Amendment challenge of a private religious organization that was denied access to briefly display its flag on a city flagpole, pursuant to a city policy expressly designating the flagpole a public forum open to all applicants, with hundreds of approvals and no denials, conflicts with the Supreme Court's precedents holding that speech restrictions based on religious viewpoint or content violate the First Amendment or are otherwise subject to strict scrutiny and that the establishment clause is not a defense to censorship of private speech in a public forum open to all comers; whether the 1st Circuit's classifying as government speech the brief display of a private religious organization's flag on a city flagpole, pursuant to a city policy expressly designating the flagpole a public forum open to all applicants, with hundreds of approvals and no denials, unconstitutionally expands the government speech doctrine, in direct conflict with the court's decisions in Matal v. Tam, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. and Pleasant Grove City v. Summum; and whether the 1st Circuit's finding that the requirement for perfunctory city approval of a proposed brief display of a private religious organization's flag on a city flagpole, pursuant to a city policy expressly designating the flagpole a public forum open to all applicants with hundreds of approvals and no denials, transforms the religious organization's private speech into government speech, conflicts with the Supreme Court's precedent in Matal v. Tam, and circuit court precedents in New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, Eagle Point Education Association v. Jackson County School District and Robb v. Hungerbeeler. Date Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Jun 21 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 26, 2021)Jul 23 2021 | Brief of respondents City of Boston, et al. in opposition filed.Jul 26 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, et al. filed.Aug 11 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.Sep 17 2021 | Reply of petitioners Harold Shurtleff, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 30 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Oct 27 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Harold Shurtleff, et al.Nov 02 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, City of Boston, et al.Nov 12 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Harold Shurtleff, et al.Nov 15 2021 | Brief of petitioners Harold Shurtleff, et al. filed.Nov 16 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed.Nov 17 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, January 18, 2022.Nov 17 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit.Nov 17 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Liberty, Life and Law Foundation filed.Nov 19 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.Nov 22 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Bronx Household of Faith filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Cornerstone Institute filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The American Legion filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Thomas More Society filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, et al. filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Protect the First Foundation filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of CatholicVote.org Education Fund filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Advancing American Freedom and Faith & Freedom Coalition filed.Nov 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Kentucky, et al. filed.Nov 30 2021 | The record from the U.S.D.C. Dist. of Massachusetts is electronic and located on Pacer.Nov 30 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.Dec 14 2021 | CIRCULATEDDec 15 2021 | Brief of respondents City of Boston, et al. filed. (Distributed)Dec 20 2021 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Dec 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, et al. filed. (Distributed)Dec 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. filed. (Distributed)Dec 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, et al. filed. (Distributed)Dec 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Local Government Organizations filed. (Distributed)Dec 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Freedom From Religion Foundation and Center for Inquiry filed. (Distributed)Dec 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Anti-Defamation League filed. (Distributed)Jan 07 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Jan 07 2022 | Reply of Harold Shurtleff, et al. not accepted for filing. (Corrected version submitted)(January 11, 2022)Jan 07 2022 | Reply of petitioners Harold Shurtleff, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jan 18 2022 | Argued. For petitioners: Mathew Staver, Orlando, Fla.; and Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Washington, D. C.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
Ron Coleman is a lawyer and writer best know for representing Simon Tam and his Asian-American band The Slants in the historic case of Matal v. Tam, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the US Patent and Trademark Office could not, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, refuse to register THE SLANTS as a trademark on the ground that it was "disparaging." He has written a popular blog about trademark and copyright law, LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION, since 2005. Born in Queens, New York, Coleman spent his childhood half in the Brighton Beach section of Brooklyn and half in suburban central New Jersey. He attended Princeton University, where he concentrated in economics and politics, and obtained a law degree at Northwestern University in Chicago. He later attended Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem and eventually was a Kollel Fellow at Mesivta Yeshiva Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin in Brooklyn, New York. Ron is a popular speaker, has a large following on Twitter under the handle @roncoleman and is the author of numerous professional articles and publications. He practices commercial and civil rights litigation as a partner in the Dhillon Law Group. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/dhts/message
Fe hecha canción es el programa de EWTN Radio Católica Mundial que promociona la música de los grupos y cantantes católicos del mundo hispano. Desde el Estudio 3 de Radio Católica Mundial, Douglas Archer comparte con ustedes una hora cargada de canciones, incluyendo las últimas novedades y estrenos, y de vez en cuando con algún invitado que canta o toca en directo.
"Can we long exist as a society if we lose our tradition in the roots of faith?" My guest on this episode of Law and Legitimacy is Ron Coleman. Ron Coleman is a partner at The Dhillon Law Group and has a robust practice including business law, commercial litigation, trademarks, intellectual property, antitrust, appellate issues and the occasional appearance in front of SCOTUS, anchored out of New York City. Ron is also the host of his own new podcast, The Coleman-Nation Podcast, and is the brilliant mind behind the massive catalogue of blog material you can find at Likelihood of Confusion. Ron is a lawyer's lawyer, without a doubt. But although our conversation was anchored in the obvious pretense of the practice of law, you will find a transcendent discussion emerge—almost from the moment this episode begins. I took great pleasure in learning of Ron's commitment to Talmudic scholarship and his willingness to share the insight embedded in what he terms to be the "codified fact patterns" of scripture. Among the most poignant queries: what is Inspiration? What does it mean to be Inspired? And is modern man inspired in his current state? This is the central question of this podcast. Ron and I together attempt to lay forth the nihilistic trajectory of the current era—a sort of anarchy—and opine on the existential importance of common conceptions of right and consensus to a society. And if two seasoned attorneys with minimal overlap in practice can colocate around these themes, where are the rest of the people in our profession? Yes. We really attacked the theme of Legitimacy. Our discussion floats effortlessly from our shared philosophical bents into more concrete topics, such as legal realism, the Lanham Act (wherein Ron teaches me and the rest of you what a trademark is in less than 90 seconds), Ron's representation of The Slants before SCOTUS in Matal v. Tam, the evolving trends in Speech, and the Giuliani law license suspension. I cannot overstate the pleasure we took here at Law and Legitimacy in hosting such engaging content. Perhaps that is the real magic of Ron Coleman. You can find him raising hell on Socials: @RonColeman, @ColemanNation1, and @Likely2Confuse. You may follow the firm, @DhillonLaw, and the Coleman-Nation Podcast producer, Jeremy Corr, @JeremyCCorr. Join Norm Pattis's growing subscriber base on Patreon. And give Law and Legitimacy a 5-Star rating on your platform of choice and leave a review! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/norm-pattis/support
"Can we long exist as a society if we lose our tradition in the roots of faith?" My guest on this episode of Law and Legitimacy is Ron Coleman. Ron Coleman is a partner at The Dhillon Law Group and has a robust practice including business law, commercial litigation, trademarks, intellectual property, antitrust, appellate issues and the occasional appearance in front of SCOTUS, anchored out of New York City. Ron is also the host of his own new podcast, The Coleman-Nation Podcast, and is the brilliant mind behind the massive catalogue of blog material you can find at Likelihood of Confusion. Ron is a lawyer's lawyer, without a doubt. But although our conversation was anchored in the obvious pretense of the practice of law, you will find a transcendent discussion emerge—almost from the moment this episode begins. I took great pleasure in learning of Ron's commitment to Talmudic scholarship and his willingness to share the insight embedded in what he terms to be the "codified fact patterns" of scripture. Among the most poignant queries: what is Inspiration? What does it mean to be Inspired? And is modern man inspired in his current state? This is the central question of this podcast. Ron and I together attempt to lay forth the nihilistic trajectory of the current era—a sort of anarchy—and opine on the existential importance of common conceptions of right and consensus to a society. And if two seasoned attorneys with minimal overlap in practice can colocate around these themes, where are the rest of the people in our profession? Yes. We really attacked the theme of Legitimacy. Our discussion floats effortlessly from our shared philosophical bents into more concrete topics, such as legal realism, the Lanham Act (wherein Ron teaches me and the rest of you what a trademark is in less than 90 seconds), Ron's representation of The Slants before SCOTUS in Matal v. Tam, the evolving trends in Speech, and the Giuliani law license suspension. I cannot overstate the pleasure we took here at Law and Legitimacy in hosting such engaging content. Perhaps that is the real magic of Ron Coleman. You can find him raising hell on Socials: @RonColeman, @ColemanNation1, and @Likely2Confuse. You may follow the firm, @DhillonLaw, and the Coleman-Nation Podcast producer, Jeremy Corr, @JeremyCCorr. Join Norm Pattis's growing subscriber base on Patreon. And give Law and Legitimacy a 5-Star rating on your platform of choice and leave a review! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/norm-pattis/support
Chase Geiser is joined by Ron Coleman. Ron Coleman is a Partner at the Dhillon Law Group and resident in its New York office. Ron is a commercial litigator with extensive first-seat trial and appellate experience who focuses on torts of competition such as trademark infringement, unfair competition and consumer law. He is known for his First Amendment advocacy, regarding both religious and free speech rights, including his representation of Simon Tam and “The Slants” in the watershed free speech case, Matal v. Tam, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition against registration of “disparaging” trademarks was unconstitutional. An alumnus of a number of major commercial firms in New York and New Jersey, the states in which he is admitted, Ron maintains a leading-edge media practice representing political and new media figures in defamation and intellectual property claims, challenges to social media “cancel culture” or “deplatforming” cases as well as traditional intellectual property litigation on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts throughout the country. Ron has been perennially listed in the World Trademark Review's “WTR 1000 Top Practitioners” guide for his trademark litigation work in New York and the World Intellectual Property's Review's “WIPR Leaders” directory, as well as Super Lawyers; he is AV rated in Martindale Hubbell. He received the American Bar Association IP Section's 2018 Mark T. Banner Award for Impact on IP Law for his work on Matal v. Tam, and his blog, Likelihood of Confusion, is one of the longest-running and most widely read intellectual property blogs on the Internet. Ron is very active on social media, notably Twitter, and has published, written and presented extensively on IP, social media and free speech issues around the country. He is a member of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association, the Federalist Society and the state bar associations of New York and New Jersey. Ron has successfully represented clients of every size in state and federal courts, arbitrations and mediations in a variety of litigation matters, including contract disputes, distributorship litigation, trademark and unfair competition cases, business tort claims, toxic tort and insurance coverage litigation, discrimination and wrongful discharge cases, copyright infringement claims, and cases involving trade secrets, restrictive covenants and real estate. His litigation experience runs from pretrial investigation and early dispute resolution through every aspect of bench and jury trials as well as appeals. Ron received his AB from Princeton University and graduated from Northwestern University School of Law. EPISODE LINKS: Chase'es Twitter: https://twitter.com/realchasegeiser Ron's Twitter: https://twitter.com/RonColeman Ron's Podcast Twitter: https://t.co/FMziSDtXSU?amp=1 Podcast Links: Anchor: https://anchor.fm/oneamerican Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IAmOneAmerican --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/oneamerican/support
REDES CHENTE: Instagram: http://instagram.com/chenteydrach Facebook: http://facebook.com/chenteydrachoficial Snapchat: https://www.snapchat.com/add/chenteyd... Twitter: http://twitter.com/chenteydrach iTunes Podcast: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/m...
Presentados por Brray, Joyce Santana y Young Martino (Las Obejas Negras), hoy conocemos al corillo que ellos (junto con Elías WhiteLion) están apadrinando: EL REBAÑO. Nunca en la historia de Gallimbo Studios habíamos tenido a tanta gente en el estudio. Desde cantantes, compositores, productores, coristas y videógtrafos. Este podcast terminó siendo una loquera.
On today's show, we talk with Ron Coleman, partner at Dhillon Law Group in New York. Ron is a commercial litigator working primarily in trademark infringement, unfair competition, and consumer law. He is a champion of free speech and is known throughout the legal profession for his First Amendment advocacy.Join us as Ron tells us the story of a case that would help to define his career. He shares with the events leading up to the landmark Matal v. Tam decision in which Ron represented the band "The Slants" in order to fight the Lanham Act and defend the band's First Amendment rights.Have you got a story about your legal career that you'd like to share? Get in touch with us over at That One Case.For more information about Ron, check out his LinkedIn. Or to find out more about his work, head over to the Dhillon Law Group website.
JOSEF KAINAR (1917 Přerov - 1978 Dobříš) - na koncertní úrovni kytara, housle, klavír, Hvězdy jsou jak sedmikrásky nad Brnem NOVÉ MÝTY (Stříhali dohola malého chlapečka - Bohumír Matal, 1950 VELIKÁ LÁSKA 1953 ČESKÝ SEN 1959 ČLOVĚKA HOŘCE MÁM RÁD 1966 MOJE BLUES, MISS OTIS LITUJE - soubor písní, existenciální ladění, hudba - 1977 OBELISK - Mišík, Suchý, Prokop, NEBE POČKÁ - Karel Plíhal, Zuzana Navarová, drama UBU SE VRACÍ - Divadlo satiry IVAN WERNISCH - Plastic People of the Universe - zhudebnil Milan Hlavsa - album Hovězí porážka - Wernischova báseň Moucha v ranním pivě, Státní cena za literaturu 2012, Magnesia litera 2013, Cena Franze Kafky 2018 - Ivan Klíma, Václav Havel, Arnošt Lustig, Daniela Hodrová, Vyšší průmyslová škola keramická - výtvarník - inspirace Marc Chagall, Mato Skurjeni (sbírka Zimohrádek) , Henri Rousseau - Chlapec na skalách, Lev požírající kořist, Sen, 60. Léta - Kam letí nebe (1961), Zimohrádek (1965), Dutý břeh (1967), ŽIL, NEBYL - normalizační realita, Samizdat: BLBECKÁ POEZIE , HLAVA NA STOLE - inspirace - procházky přírodou VÁCLAV HRABĚ - BLUES PRO BLÁZNIVOU HOLKU, BLUES V MODRÉ A BÍLÉ, ČERNÉ NEBE NAD MĚSTEM, recitace Miroslavem Kovaříkem, časopis Tvář, Mácha v "texaskách", Allen Ginsberg JOSEF HIRŠAL - Let let, JOB BOJ, s Bohumilou Grögerovou antologie Experimentální poezie, Soukromá galerie
Daniel Márquez, gerent de les botigues Bed's a Catalunya, ens explica com triar bé.
We’re joined for this episode by attorney and tremendous free speech advocate Ron Coleman. We kick off this episode with Ron talking about his landmark Supreme Court case Matal v.Tam which set a precedent for re-appropriation of ethnic slurs in trademark & copyright law. We also talk about how society is moving speech in the wrong direction, and how we can legally fight back - and whether or not that’s even important.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Episode 40 On this episode I had the pleasure of talking to Simon Tam about his new book Slanted: How an Asian American Troublemaker Took on the Supreme Court Tam has been a keynote speaker, performer, and presenter at TEDx, SXSW, Comic-Con, The Department of Defense, Stanford University, and over 1,300 events across four continents. He has set a world record by appearing on the TEDx stage 13 times. We talked about the band The Slants, jumping on drumsets, being an Asian American, racism, and how the battle with the trademark office all started. The trademark battle has been featured on NBC News, NPR, The Washington Post and Wikipedia (so you know it’s for real, right?). From his website: Simon Tam is an author, musician, activist, and troublemaker. Tam is best known as the founder and bassist of The Slants, the world’s first and only all-Asian American dance rock band. He helped expand civil liberties for minorities by winning a unanimous victory at the Supreme Court of the United States for a landmark case, Matal v. Tam, in 2017. He also leads The Slants Foundation, a nonprofit that supports arts and activism projects for underrepresented communities. Tam has been a keynote speaker, performer, and presenter at TEDx, SXSW, Comic-Con, The Department of Defense, Stanford University, and over 1,300 events across four continents. He has set a world record by appearing on the TEDx stage 13 times. As a communications expert, Tam designed one of the first college-accredited social media and digital marketing certificates in the United States. His approach to cultural competency in marketing has been taught to hundreds of Fortune 500 companies and public service organizations. In 2016, Simon joined President Barack Obama, George Takei, Jeremy Lin, and other celebrities in the #ActToChange campaign to fight bullying. Simon Tam continues to fight for justice by serving on multiple nonprofit boards, developing innovative solutions to social problems, and sharing a message of radical optimism. https://www.simontam.org/ Social media: @simonthetam Book on Amazon: https://amzn.to/3i2j39A Music for all episodes by Jon Griffin. My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCugOLERePPuD4nwtZO-Zwnw?view_as=subscriber My Instagram: @joelyshmoley and @slideswithjohn FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/wereyoustilltalking/ Twitter: @JoelAAlbrecht
Join historian John Lestrange for episode 2 of Genostory: We Agreed to Do This. In this episode John will go over the Allport Scale, the Pyramid of Hate and Gregory Stanton's 10 Stages of Genocide. These are powerful tools that can be used to recognize genocides before they progress to the stage of mass killing and should be known to everyone. Special thanks to the app Hatchful and MJ Bradley for designing and editing out logo. Show music is "Crusade - Heavy Industry by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License. Sources: https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/pyramid-of-hate.pdf Allport, Gordon (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley. Silver, Hilary (1994). "Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms". International Labour Review. 133 (5–6): 531–78. Steed, Jason P. @5thCircAppeals. August 9, 2016. https://twitter.com/5thCircAppeals/status/763098172633657344 Journal of Research in Personality. Volume 9, Issue 4, December 1975, Pages 253-269 Dehumanizing Always Starts With Language. May 17, 2018. https://brenebrown.com/blog/2018/05/17/dehumanizing-always-starts-with-language/ Carmichael, Stokely; Hamilton, Charles V. (1967). Black Power: Politics of Liberation (November 1992 ed.). New York: Vintage. Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___, (2017) The Ten Stages of Genocide by Dr. Gregory H. Stanton https://www.genocidewatch.com/ten-stages-of-genocide Anderson, Kjell. (2015) Colonialism and Cold Genocide: The Case of West Papua. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Vol. 9: Iss. 2: 9–25. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The Overnight Underground Podcast, now the headlines: The national unemployment suicide continues. Biden’s virtual rally crashes. Kelly and Reade talk up creepy Biden. San Antonio goes all in for censorship and California to screen diners for coronavirus. These stories & more coming up on today’s Overnight Underground News. I’m John Ford. Unemployment skyrockets The unemployment numbers are in, and they ain’t pretty. The unemployment rate is hovering under fifteen percent and twenty and one half million jobs evaporated in the month of April. All in all over one hundred million people are not in the labor force. The “real” unemployment rate, which includes workers not looking for jobs and the underemployed, surged to just under twenty three percent. All that bad news couldn’t stop the market from opening up Friday morning, surging over three hundred points. According to one alleged financial fortune teller at JP Morgan, it will take a decade for the employment numbers to return to pre-pandemic numbers. That’s JP Morgan’s Bob Michelle on Bloomberg. Trump’s cunning plan So what’s our glorious el’ Presidente’ going to do to help with the current economic woes the US is currently experiencing? NBC News is reporting Mister Trump is considering, among other steps, pushing the tax deadline back again. Although administration officials stress that no decision has been made, the date for taxes due might be pushed back to September fifteenth or even as late as December first. Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden undoubtedly has a cunning plan too Biden’s virtual disaster Speaking of Biden, he had a virtual rally on-line on Thursday from Tampa Bay, and well, technically it didn’t go so well. The Stamford Advocate and other sources report that the streaming event was awkward and contained a number of glitches and blank screens. But that was just Joe, there were technical issues as well. But come one, cut the guy a break, he’s seventy seven and you expect him to know how to handle all those computerized doo dads, blinkin’ lights and such? South Africa hacked In South Africa, computer incontinence went a step further, when a streaming meeting of the National Assembly was hacked and attendees got an eyeful with pornographic images and insults hurled at National Assembly Speaker Thandi Modise. According to EWN News, the assembly was adjourned and technicians worked to fix the hacked Zoom meeting. Kelly talks to Biden accuser Reade In somewhat related news, former Fox News talking head Megan Kelly interviewed Joe Biden sexual assault accuser Tara Reade on the interneterwebertubes yesterday. The former cable bimbo, ah star beat out all the network and cable big-wigs landing the interview. Reade told Kelly she thinks Biden should drop out of the race. I’ll bet she asked him to withdraw years ago. Georgia men arrested for murder The father and son who were caught on video allegedly hunting and then killing a man have been charged with murder. The video of the event created a social media meltdown in recent days and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation clamped the cuffs on the two at their home in Brunswick, Georgia, on Thursday. Gregory and Travis McMichael were officially booked on charges of murder and aggravated assault. San Antonio passes hate speech law The San Antonio City Council voted unanimously to approve a resolution labeling the term "Chinese virus" and “Kung Fu Flu” as hate speech. The council is encouraging the good folks of San Antonio to report that kinda’ hateful speech to authorities for investigation. You gotta’ wonder what the council is smoking down San Antone’ way. The Supreme Court has on numerous occasions struck down any semblance of hate speech laws in the US, citing the laws as being unconstitutional. In fact just two years ago, in 2017 Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote regarding Matal v. Tam: “ A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.” The San Antonio City Council are lawmakers, you would think they might have just a smattering of constitutional jurisprudence. What a bunch of morons, maybe they all have the kung fu flu. Cali to screen restaurant patrons California Governor Gavin Newsom says that restaurant workers will screen patrons for Covid-19. Newsom said the full guidelines for sit-down dining would be released on May eleventh. Bui it does appear that restaurant employees will have to perform a detailed risk assessment of diners, as to what exactly those assessments are, who the hell knows. The web site Eater speculates that temperature checks and maybe a checklist of questions to ask patrons. Good god, it sounds like a TSA checkpoint. I guess it’s the obvious evolution of the security checkpoint theater air travelers have been dealing with for two decades and Cali is the perfect place to start with a population of more than willing chattel. I wonder if California will start forcing waiters to get medical degrees. Queen guitarist hospitalized Queen guitarist Brian May is in the hospital, and it doesn’t have anything to do with coronavirus. According to the Independent, the guitar shredder is laid up for ‘ripping his buttocks to shreds’, all this happened in a gardening accident. Oh, so that’s what they’re calling it how. The 72-year-old May says he was doing some over-enthusiastic gardening when the gory gluteus maximus shedding occurred. If only if he was a girl and had a fatter bottom, he might have avoided this mess all together.
Kevin & Andrea have a heated debate over Cinnamon Rolls vs Donuts! Which side will you be on?
Kevin & Andrea talk about Covid-19, quarantine, Penny, working from home and 90 Day Fiance: Before The 90 Days.
Full Transcript Bree Klauser is a New York based Singer, Actress, Voiceover artist, Songwriter and funny lady who happens to be born legally blind. She grew up 30 miles from NYC, fell in love with singing and performing through musical theatre and later on the Jazz greats of the 40s, 50s, and 60s. She earned her BFA in acting from Brooklyn College. She has been mentored by the late former Metropolitan Opera singer Francisco Casanova, and has studied with many other coaches and Broadway musical directors. In 2018,Bree started production on her breakout role of "Matal" in "SEE", a new AppleTV Plus series starring Jason Momoa. All songs on this podcast are the works of Bree and the Whatevers. You can find links to Bree’s music and videos on her web site at https://www.breeklauser.com. Follow Bree Klauser on Instagram. Stay tuned for Bree’s follow up podcast arriving soon! Contact Your State Services If you reside in Minnesota, and you would like to know more about Transition Services from State Services contact Transition Coordinator Sheila Koenig by email or contact her via phone at 651-539-2361. To find your State Services in your State you can go to www.AFB.org and search the directory for your agency. Contact: Thank you for listening! You can follow us on Twitter @BlindAbilities On the web at www.BlindAbilities.com Send us an email Get the Free Blind Abilities App on the App Storeand Google Play Store. Check out the Blind Abilities Communityon Facebook, the Blind Abilities Page, the Career Resources for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the Assistive Technology Community for the Blind and Visually Impaired. and the Facebook group That Blind Tech Show.
Trademark law and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution seem from the outset to have a complex and conflicted relationship. Indeed, while protection of the right to freedom of expression can encourage the creation and dissemination of ideas and information, government protection of trademarks can suppress and punish expression that incorporates another's registered trademark. Even further, trademark law sometimes prevents registration of signs that would otherwise be considered speech protected by the First Amendment, with numerous and strict conditions on what may or may not be registered. Lisa P. Ramsey, Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, who teaches in the areas of trademark law and intellectual property in general, will explain the interactions between free expression and trademark law. Lisa’s most recent articles in the Houston Law Review, The Trademark Reporter, and other publications put the focus on the potential conflict between trademark and free expression rights in national and international laws; and a paper published by Oxford University Press explored nontraditional trademarks and inherently valuable expression. She notably talks about two recent groundbreaking U.S. Supreme Court cases right on point, namely Matal v. Tam (2017) and Iancu v. Brunetti (2019) about the right for the government to deny trademark registration to certain categories of trademarks “potentially disparaging” marks and “immoral or scandalous” marks, respectively.Every two weeks, on Tuesday, Brand & New gives the floor to inspiring individuals, with a 360-degree vision, to help brand owners, intellectual property lawyers, and marketing and finance professionals (and beyond!) stay curious and agile in an ever-evolving business environment. Brand & New is a production of the International Trademark AssociationHosted by Audrey DauvetContribution of M. Halle & S. Lagedamond - Music by JD BeatsFOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT INTA.ORGTo go further:About Lisa Ramsey (link to http://www.lisapramsey.com) Also of interest:- Article about Lee v. Tam decision (link to https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lee-v-tam/)- INTA statement re: Amicus Brief in the case of Lee v. Tam (link to: https://www.inta.org/Press/Pages/Lee_v_Tam_Amicus_Brief_Media_Statement.aspx)- Opinions/articles about the Iancu v. Brunetti decision (link to https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-302_e29g.pdf, https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/long-time-prohibition-on-registration-of-scandalous-and-immoral-trademarks-is-struck-down/ and https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/intellectual-property/practice/2019/iancu-v-brunetti-trademark-registration/)- Articles written by Lisa Ramsey about free speech and trademark protection - link to:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2860302, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=728572 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1692954- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3310854- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3104939- https://globa
In this episode, Simon Tam, the founder and bassist for The Slants, an Asian-American dance-rock band, discusses his fight to register his band's name as a trademark with the USPTO, and how he helped changed trademark law. Tam begins by describing the origins and aesthetics of The Slants, including why he chose the band's name. He explains why he filed a trademark registration application, and why he chose to fight the USPTO's denial of his application. And he reflects on why he thinks the Supreme Court (mostly) got it right, when it held in Matal v. Tam (2017) that the Lanham Act's prohibition of the registration of "disparaging" trademarks violated the First Amendment. Tam is on Twitter at @SimonTheTam.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In this dual interview episode, I speak with Simon Tam about all he's doing for the music community through podcasting, public speaking and writing. We also talk about his activism and support for other artists. Then we switch seats and Simon interviews me for his Music Business Hacks podcast. Episode Highlights We start the conversation by talking about Simon's process for creating 300+ podcast episodes to date, and go on to discuss: His passion for the business side of music Representation of Asian Americans by Simon and The Slants The Supreme Court battle for his band's name Simon's suggestions on how art and business can successfully combine How and why Robonzo started his The Unstarving Musician podcast The joy of curating the expertise of musicians Creating moments of connection on stage as a musician Key Points If you're persistent, strategic and consistent, you'll see major growth in your music career. Dress the part. Work on your craft. Serve the audience and your band members. Community is key. Focus on building relationships. Quotable “You need to tackle the business side of things with the same level of creativity, the willingness to experiment, the willingness to know yourself. Your uniqueness. What makes you distinct?” —Simon Tam “Begin with a vision of what you'd like, and then work out the steps to get there.” —Simon Tam Mentioned in this Episode Simon Tam The Slants Music Business Hacks: The Daily Habits of the Self-Made Musician Music Business Hacks Podcast Matal v. Tam DIY Musician Conference Piezo Ableton Live Pledge your support for Unstarving Musician on Patreon The Unstarving Musician is committed to sharing the best tips and information of other music professionals to help musicians do more of what they love – make music. Our weekly podcasts features in depth discussions with musicians and music space professionals discussing music creation, marketing, and business tips. All this is made possible by the contributions of individuals like you in our shared community who love making music. Please visit the Unstarving Musician Crowd Sponsor Page for more on supporting the podcast. MUSICIAN RESOURCES The Unstarving Musician's Guide to Getting Paid Gigs, by Robonzo BandZoogle – The all-in-one platform that makes it easy to build a beautiful website for your music The Musician's Profit Path: The 5-Stage Blueprint To Create Massive Growth In Your Fan Base and Sustainable Income For Your Music Career, by Bree Noble No Booker, No Bouncer, No Bartender: How I Made $25K On A 2-Month House Concert Tour, by Shannon Curtis Find more resources at UnstarvingMusician.com/resources This episode is brought to you by Bandzoogle. From garage bands to Grammy winners, Bandzoogle powers the websites for thousands of musicians around the world. Plans start at just $8.29/month, which includes hosting and your own free custom domain name. Go to Bandzoogle.com to start your 30 day free trial. Use promo code “robonzo” to get 15% off the first year of any subscription. Full Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. If you purchase products using these links, I'll earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thanks for your support!
In this dual interview episode, I speak with Simon Tam about all he's doing for the music community through podcasting, public speaking and writing. We also talk about his activism and support for other artists. Then we switch seats and Simon interviews me for his Music Business Hacks podcast. Episode Highlights We start the conversation by talking about Simon's process for creating 300+ podcast episodes to date, and go on to discuss: His passion for the business side of music Representation of Asian Americans by Simon and The Slants The Supreme Court battle for his band's name Simon's suggestions on how art and business can successfully combine How and why Robonzo started his The Unstarving Musician podcast The joy of curating the expertise of musicians Creating moments of connection on stage as a musician Key Points If you're persistent, strategic and consistent, you'll see major growth in your music career. Dress the part. Work on your craft. Serve the audience and your band members. Community is key. Focus on building relationships. Quotable “You need to tackle the business side of things with the same level of creativity, the willingness to experiment, the willingness to know yourself. Your uniqueness. What makes you distinct?” —Simon Tam “Begin with a vision of what you'd like, and then work out the steps to get there.” —Simon Tam Mentioned in this Episode Simon Tam The Slants Music Business Hacks: The Daily Habits of the Self-Made Musician Music Business Hacks Podcast Matal v. Tam DIY Musician Conference Piezo Ableton Live Pledge your support for Unstarving Musician on Patreon The Unstarving Musician is committed to sharing the best tips and information of other music professionals to help musicians do more of what they love – make music. Our weekly podcasts features in depth discussions with musicians and music space professionals discussing music creation, marketing, and business tips. All this is made possible by the contributions of individuals like you in our shared community who love making music. Please visit the Unstarving Musician Crowd Sponsor Page for more on supporting the podcast. MUSICIAN RESOURCES The Unstarving Musician's Guide to Getting Paid Gigs, by Robonzo BandZoogle – The all-in-one platform that makes it easy to build a beautiful website for your music The Musician's Profit Path: The 5-Stage Blueprint To Create Massive Growth In Your Fan Base and Sustainable Income For Your Music Career, by Bree Noble No Booker, No Bouncer, No Bartender: How I Made $25K On A 2-Month House Concert Tour, by Shannon Curtis Find more resources at UnstarvingMusician.com/resources This episode is brought to you by Bandzoogle. From garage bands to Grammy winners, Bandzoogle powers the websites for thousands of musicians around the world. Plans start at just $8.29/month, which includes hosting and your own free custom domain name. Go to Bandzoogle.com to start your 30 day free trial. Use promo code “robonzo” to get 15% off the first year of any subscription. Full Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. If you purchase products using these links, I'll earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thanks for your support!
Good morning. In this guest episode, Brett talks with Simon Tam, bass player of the band that fought the Lanham Act in Lee v. Tam. Brett and Simon discuss what its like to bring a lawsuit before the Supreme Court, the state of Free Speech, the dynamics of playing in a rock band, the appropriate tenor for diss-tracks and what its like to rock on the front steps of the Supreme Court.
In late June, the Supreme Court struck down the part of federal trademark law that prohibited the registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks. The case was called Iancu v. Brunetti, and it was a follow-up to the court's Matal v. Tam ruling two years ago. In Tam, the justices unanimously ruled that the Lanham Act's ban on disparaging trademarks was a violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. In Brunetti, the justices used the First Amendment to strike down another ban: the one on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks. Mr. Erik Brunetti sought to register the word mark "FUCT," in connection with clothing. The examining attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") refused registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, on the basis that the mark was vulgar, and therefore "immoral" or "scandalous." The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") upheld the examining attorney's decision on appeal. Mr. Brunetti then appealed the TTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit requested additional briefing from the parties following the Supreme Court's decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017), which held that Section 2(a)'s prohibition on registering "disparaging" trademarks is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In December 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous ruling declaring unconstitutional Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibits the registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks. The issue came down to a key part of First Amendment law: is the regulation in question viewpoint-neutral? The First Amendment protects speech despite the viewpoint it expresses, so the government (in this case, the USPTO) cannot pick winners and losers because it likes some views better than others. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Elena Kagan concluded that is exactly what the USPTO had been doing in applying the “immoral or scandalous” ban codified in the Lanham Act. Kagan examined the USPTO's treatment of trademarks related to drugs: trademark examiners rejected “YOU CAN'T SPELL HEALTHCARE WITHOUT THC,” “MARIJUANA COLA,” and “KO KANE.” But they approved “D.A.R.E. TO RESIST DRUGS AND VIOLENCE” and “SAY NO TO DRUGS—REALITY IS THE BEST TRIP IN LIFE.” According to the Court, those decisions are clearly viewpoint-based and, therefore, unconstitutional, even if they are “understandable” because of the trademarks' potential to offend. Justice Sotomayor in her dissenting opinion—anticipate a rush to register trademarks containing arguably vulgar, profane, or obscene words and images, with the PTO now powerless to say no. She's right! This ruling means that trademark registrations are open to any type of language. It's the Wild West in the dusty, old town of TrademarkVille. What do you want to say about your product? Does your product's branding have a viewpoint? Registrations at the USPTO now must be open to all, even those marks that will offend. Intellectual Property law seemed to be one area that was stuck in the past, even as technology keeps changing at a rapid pace. Not anymore. Bring on all the words that you may need to cover your ears to hear. They're registrable. Here is a lightly-edited transcript of the video blog: Trademark law generally does not change. In the last two years, however, trademark law has had a couple of really big changes, thanks to the Supreme Court. Several 6-3 decisions have basically allowed, well, some bolder language to come in and well, maybe some trademarks that don't actually treat people very well to be registered. How did this happen? A couple of years ago, a band called The Slants wanted to register the band name as trademark. It was rejected. Why? Because "The Slants" was deemed to be words that disparaged people. Specifically, it was deemed to be an ethnic slur and a trademark under the
In this bonus episode of our series #1AUSA – conversations on the First Amendment’s past, present, and future, from the National Conference on the First Amendment at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh – artist and activist Simon Tam and his band The Slants tell their story and perform some of their music. Simon Tam led The Slants – an Asian-American dance-rock band – all the way to the Supreme Court to fight to trademark their band’s name, which they purposely chose as reclamation of a slur used against Asian-Americans. They eventually won their case, Matal v. Tam, when the Court unanimously decided that a federal law prohibiting trademark names that disparage others was unconstitutional because “speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend.” Since then, Tam and the band have toured the country speaking about the First Amendment and the Constitution, and Tam authored the book 'Slanted: How an Asian American Troublemaker Took on the Supreme Court'. This episode was presented by Duquesne University and The Pittsburgh Foundation. For more information about the National Conference on the First Amendment, visit www.duq.edu/1a. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
In this episode, Lisa P. Ramsey, Professor of Law at University of San Diego School of Law, discusses her article "Free Speech Challenges to Trademark Law After Matal v. Tam," and her work on "nontraditional marks." Ramsey begins by describing what trademarks are, what trademark law can protect, and how the trademark registration process works. She explains how the Trademark Office used to refuse to register disparaging, immoral, and scandalous marks on statutory grounds, until the Supreme Court found those exclusions unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in Matal v. Tam (2017) and Iancu v. Brunetti (2019). Ramsey reflects on the meaning of the Supreme Court's application of First Amendment protections to trademark registration, and how it could cascade through the trademark doctrine, affecting other areas of trademark law, including dilution and "inherently valuable expression." Ramsey is on Twitter at @LPRamsey.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Simon Tam is best known as the founder and bassist of The Slants, the world’s first and only all-Asian American dance rock band. He has been a keynote speaker, performer, and presenter at TEDx, SXSW, Comic-Con, The Department of Defense, Stanford University, and over 1,200 events across four continents. He has set a world record by appearing on the TEDx stage 13 times. His work has been highlighted in over 3,000 media features across 150 countries including The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, NPR, BBC, New York Times, and Rolling Stone.He was named a champion of diverse issues by the White House and worked with President Barack Obama’s campaign to fight bullying. He recently helped expand freedom of speech through winning a unanimous victory at the Supreme Court of the United States for a landmark case, Matal v. Tam.Tam designed one of the first college-accredited social media and digital marketing certificates in the United States. His approach to cultural competency in marketing has been taught to hundreds of Fortune 500 companies.He has received many accolades for his work, including: The Mark T. Banner award from the American Bar Association, the Hugh M Hefner First Amendment Award, Milestone Case of the Year from Managing IP Magazine, and Distinguished Alum Award from Marylhurst University. In addition, he was named Citizen of the Year by the Chinese American Citizens Alliance, a Freedom Fighter by the Roosevelt Freedom Fighters, and a Portland Rising Star from the Light a Fire Awards.In 2018, he founded The Slants Foundation, an organization dedicated to providing scholarships and mentorship to artists combining activism and community engagement into their work.We chatted via Skype about one of his books titled Music Business Hacks - it’s like a recipe book for music business success. Every section is broken down into short bites with specific actions that you can take to begin taking control of your music career right away. Crammed with over 2,000 tips and idea-generators, this book will let you hack your way through the music business. Also, it features advice from A&R reps, label owners, publicists, attorneys, artists, and much more.Simon’s a very busy guy, but he was gracious with his time - even though he’s on the road pretty much full time right now. I think you’re going to get a lot out of what he had to say. After listening, check out the book and his podcast.
Thou shalt not fuck with George Washington! In this episode people wear bones and make out. Not at the same time. That would be gross. Chad doesn’t like Hashal and Matal. Dalinar learns more about the Bro Code. Liz asserts that Ho Code is a thing. And we learn the sexually violent origin story of ... [Read more...]
Welcome to the first episode of Rice for Breakfast! My first guest is Simon Tam, founder of the first all Asian-American dance-rock band 'The Slants' and winner of Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam.
This week's episode covers oral arguments and recent decisions with varying degrees of stakes. Brett and Nazim discuss Abbott v. Perez (which might decide the fate of modern democracy) Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC (which may facilitate terrorism), SAS Institute v. Matal (which deals with paperwork), and Trump v. Hawaii (which has something to do with the President). Law starts at (04:18).
Note: The "C" segment of this episode (and the show notes) contain hilarious explicit language in order to discuss a recent development in trademark law. You've been warned! In the preshow, we tamp down on some unwarranted liberal freakout regarding a recent White House Executive Order regarding the last few fraying strands of our social safety net. After that, we revisit three cases we told you we'd be keeping an eye on. First, we look at the aftermath of Jane Doe v. Wright, which we first discussed in Episodes 117 and 133. Back then, we told you about the fate of a single young woman in state custody who was denied her right to an abortion; today, we tell you about the nationwide class action that was just certified in Garza v. Hargan. Next, we revisit Kolbe v. Hogan, which we called a "landmark" case way back in Episode 47. Find out how a federal district court judge in Massachusetts just applied Kolbe in upholding the Massachusetts ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. For our third revisit, we take a look at another trademark case in light of the Slants case (Matal v. Tam) that we first discussed with Simon Tam way back in Episode 33 and reported on Tam's victory before the Supreme Court in Episode 80. The Slants's victory paved the way for disparaging and offensive trademarks, but what about garden-variety "immoral or scandalous" ones, like FUCT clothing or "Big Dick Nick" towels? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to the fiendishly hard Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #71 about whether a state can discriminate against out-of-state competitors. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links This is Alphr's list of the "15 Best Podcasts of 2018" -- and wow, we're in some good company! You can click here to read the White House Executive Order on "Reducing Poverty in America;" we quoted from Section 5 at the end. We first discussed Jane Doe v. Wright in Episodes 117 and 133. We first told you about Kolbe v. Hogan in Episode 47; now, you can read the Massachusetts decision in Worman v. Healey. Also, if you like briefs, you can read the petition for certiorari, the State of Maryland's opposition, and the petitioners' reply. We told you about the Slants's case back in our Episode 33 interview with Simon Tam and reported on Tam's Supreme Court win in Episode 80; today, we discuss In re Brunetti, which applies the Matal v. Tam holding to the rest of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). Finally, the link you've been waiting for: the Deadspin article about "Big Dick Nick." Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com
In this episode, Maj. Jake Miraldi walks listeners through the 2009 Battle of Barg-e Matal in eastern Afghanistan's Nuristan province. He was part of a small US force sent to retake a village captured by Taliban forces. They expected to be at the village for 96 hours. His battalion ended up fighting there for two months.
Simon Tam named his band “The Slants” as a way to fight back against racism and take back the word as a form of self-empowerment. But when he tried to register the name as a trademark, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application and refused to register the trademark under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. This law allowed the PTO to refuse a trademark if it could be considered disparaging. No one outside of the PTO actually found the band name disparaging. In this episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White examines the Matal v. Tam case in which the Supreme Court vindicated Simon Tam and The Slants, finding that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act -- which allows the PTO to deny trademarks it finds offense -- violates the First Amendment. In the episode, Simon Tam himself explains how the PTO substituted its own judgment for the advocacy of Asian-Americans trying to highlight and fight back against racism. This episode also features quotes from the justices involved and music from The Slants.
"V" is the letter of the day today, as we are covering VOCABULARY this week on the Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court. Brett and Nazim cover three current cases which debate the meanings of statutory text, including Murphy v. Smith (how much is 25%?), Digital Realty Trust v. Somers (what is a whistle blower?), and SAS Institute v. Matal (what is a final written decision?). Law starts at (04:25).
Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy GroupHas the administrative state gone too far into disputes over innovation and technology? That question animates Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday, November 27 over whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. SAS Institute v. MatalIn SAS Institute v. Matal, the question presented is, in the context of post-grant review of a patent under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must issue a final written decision on the validity of every patent claim challenged, or can the PTAB rule on only some of the patent claims challenged. This case involves a relatively confined question of statutory construction, but, assuming the Supreme Court does not dismantle the AIA’s post-grant review system in Oil States, SAS Institute has the potential to dramatically change post-grant patent challenges. The statute at issue, 35 U.S.C. 318(a), mandates: “If an inter partes review is instituted . . . , the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner . . . .” The Patent Office interprets this provision to mean that the PTAB need provide a final written decision on only the claims the PTAB reviews in full. Thus, under current practice, a patent challenger can ask the PTAB to cancel all claims of a patent when filing an IPR petition, but the PTAB may institute full review of only some of the claims. The final written decision is limited to only those claims the PTAB reviews in full. Petitioner in SAS Institute challenges this practice, arguing that the plain text of the statute, along with the statutory text and purpose, requires a decision on all challenged claims. The case has important implications about the AIA process, the degree to which AIA review of patents creates finality to patent validity determinations, and the applicability of Chevron deference to the Patent Office’s rules and procedures.Featuring:Mr. Matthew J. Dowd, Founder, Dowd PLLCMr. Brian H. Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy GroupHas the administrative state gone too far into disputes over innovation and technology? That question animates Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday, November 27 over whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. SAS Institute v. MatalIn SAS Institute v. Matal, the question presented is, in the context of post-grant review of a patent under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must issue a final written decision on the validity of every patent claim challenged, or can the PTAB rule on only some of the patent claims challenged. This case involves a relatively confined question of statutory construction, but, assuming the Supreme Court does not dismantle the AIA’s post-grant review system in Oil States, SAS Institute has the potential to dramatically change post-grant patent challenges. The statute at issue, 35 U.S.C. 318(a), mandates: “If an inter partes review is instituted . . . , the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner . . . .” The Patent Office interprets this provision to mean that the PTAB need provide a final written decision on only the claims the PTAB reviews in full. Thus, under current practice, a patent challenger can ask the PTAB to cancel all claims of a patent when filing an IPR petition, but the PTAB may institute full review of only some of the claims. The final written decision is limited to only those claims the PTAB reviews in full. Petitioner in SAS Institute challenges this practice, arguing that the plain text of the statute, along with the statutory text and purpose, requires a decision on all challenged claims. The case has important implications about the AIA process, the degree to which AIA review of patents creates finality to patent validity determinations, and the applicability of Chevron deference to the Patent Office’s rules and procedures.Featuring:Mr. Matthew J. Dowd, Founder, Dowd PLLCMr. Brian H. Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal | 11/27/17 | Docket #: 16-969
Argued 11/27/2017. Description from Oyez.org: "A case in which the court will determine if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board must address every claim that is challenged in a claimant’s petition in its final written decision, or if it may address only a subset of those claims, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)."
Attorney Casey Mattox Discusses the Climate of #Freespeech Since Matal v. Tam by Lawyers For Jesus
Hannah speaks with Suzann Moskowitz of The Moskowitz Firm in Cleveland, Ohio. They discuss solo practice, maintaining work life balance, and the recent Matal v. Tam decision. NSFW warning: The episode contains some bad language. If you would like to contact Suzann, you can find her online at themoskowitzfirm.com or reach her by phone at 216-339-1111. You can also read more about the Brunetti case referenced in this episode here: www.cafc.uscourts.gov/node/19693.
Detta är ett ovanligt förberett avsnitt, rykande aktuellt om något så glödhett som politikNästan bara snustorrt innehållMycket nöjehttps://archive.org/download/PodcastenDinkelAvsnitt9/Podcasten%20Dinkel%20-%20Avsnitt%209.mp3
This is the first episode in MWI's new podcast, "The Spear," which is aimed at providing a window into the combat experience. In this episode, Capt. Jake Miraldi walks us through the 2009 Battle of Barg-e Matal in eastern Afghanistan's Nuristan province, and his role in it as a platoon leader.
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal
Former Online Editor Anthony Zangrillo and Former Senior Notes and Articles Editor Joey Gerber take a break from BAR prep in order to discuss "one of the most important First Amendment free speech cases to come along in many years" Matal v. Tam.1 In the past, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has refused to register trademarks considered that disparage a particular person, group or institution. On June 19, the Supreme Court unanimously held (8-0) that the disparagement clause (Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act), is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The specific case in controversy involved a Portland, Oregon, rock band “The Slants.” All the members of the band are of Asian decent and the name represents a move of empowerment in reclaiming a historically derogatory term. Simon Tam filed a trademark application to federally register the band’s name, “The Slants.” The PTO refused to register the mark as “derogatory or offensive” based on the dictionary meaning of ‘slants’ or ‘slant-eyes.’ Tam lost an appeal to the PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), but this ruling was reversed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the disparagement clause is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause. On this podcast, Anthony and Joey discuss the Supreme Court decision and the ramifications this could have on future trademark applications, as well as other decisions such as the recent controversy over the Washington Redskins.2 Don’t forget to also subscribe to the podcast on iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/fordham-intellectual-property/id1158550285?mt=2) and leave a review!
Trademark and first amendment at issue - Matal v. Tam In this exciting episode of Vondran Legal Hour, Attorney Steve discusses the recent United States Supreme Court case which rules that the Lanham Act "disparagement clause" is unconstitional as to the First Amendment right of free speech in regard to an asian band called "the slants" who wanted to register the trademark and try to change views as to the negative sterotypes. The USPTO denied the registration of the mark and so did the TTAB. The case then moved to the Federal Courts which found for the applicant finding the trademark to be registerable and the right of free speech to be the primary source (government has no right to engage in viewpoint censorship). This same type of discretion goes on when driver's license plates are reviewed for content and sometimes denied on graounds that the speech is hateful, offensive, slanderous or dispaging to racial and ethnic moniorities. Wil this prompt a new slew of filings of what some may see as Offensive or Derogatory trademarks? Time will tell. Will this have any impact on the Washington Redskins trademark denial. Resources 1. AttorneySteve.com (our corporate homepage) 2. AttorneySteveVideos.com (our popular youtube channel nearing 4,000 subscribers) 3. Our Washington Redskins case analysis This is an advertisement and communication and not legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. For help with trademark issues, responses to office action letters, TTAB appeal, mediation, arbitration or litigation call(877) 276-5084.
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Matal v. Tam. Simon Tam of The Slants, an Asian American rock band, applied to register the band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office, but the application was denied. The Office claimed that the name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent,” citing the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that “[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” Tam appealed to a board within the Office but was again denied. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ultimately held en banc that the Disparagement Clause violated the First Amendment on its face. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Parts I, II, and III-A of Justice Alito’s majority opinion were joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Thomas joined except for Part II. Parts III-B, III-C, and IV of Justice Alito’s majority opinion were joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and Breyer. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. -- To discuss the case, we have Michael R. Huston, who is Associate Attorney at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
The Court has ruled today in two important cases, Matal v. Tam (aka "The Slants" copyright case) and Packingham v. North Carolina, which concerns a North Carolina law that restricts the access of convicted sex offenders to “commercial social networking” websites. Mr. Michael Huston and Mr. Ilya Shapiro joined us for this special Teleforum in which the holdings and reasoning of both cases were discussed. -- Featuring:Mr. Michael R. Huston, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.
Simon Tam likes to quote Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous line — paraphrased from transcendentalist Theodore Parker’s earlier statement — that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” That said, Tam likes to add that the arc doesn’t bend on its own. It takes courageous individuals willing to stand up for their rights for justice to be achieved. Tam can now add himself to the list of those who bore the cost of standing up for their rights — and found justice. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Matal v. Tam that the First Amendment prohibits the United States Patent and Trademark Office from denying trademark registration for the name of Tam’s rock band, The Slants, because it allegedly “disparages” Asians. The PTO didn’t care that Tam, the founder of and bass player for The Slants, is himself of Asian descent — as are all the band members — or that Tam picked the name to celebrate Asian heritage, not disparage it. On today’s special “extra” episode of So to Speak, we speak with University of Washington School of Law scholar Ronald Collins and FIRE Justice Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow Zachary Greenberg about the decision. We also feature an April interview we conducted with The Slants about the case at FIRE’s Philadelphia office. To close out the show, The Slants perform two acoustic songs for your listening pleasure. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Video: https://youtu.be/iqr6l-mEGCA Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100
This is the first episode in MWI's new podcast, "The Spear," which is aimed at providing a window into the combat experience. In this episode, Capt. Jake Miraldi walks us through the 2009 Battle of Barg-e Matal in eastern Afghanistan's Nuristan province, and his role in it as a platoon leader.
Assistant Director/Second Unit Director Conte Mark Matal chats with Tommy Burke. Conte is known for his work on The Big Lebowski, Glee, Spotlight, Supergirl, and Jack Reacher: Never Go Back. The Not Just Sunglasses & Autographs podcast is hosted by Tommy Burke, who has been working in TV and film production for more than 25 years as a First Assistant Director. Download the podcast, listen on iTunes, and write a review.
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0200 no https://audios.ccma.cat/multimedi
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
