Skip to main content
  • Home
  • About
  • Faculty Experts
  • For The Media
  • Videos
  • Topics
    • Alumni
    • Events
    • Faculty
    • Library
    • Research
    • Students
    • All Topics
  • Contact
  • Submit
Media, Law & Policy
  • All News
  • Arts & Culture
  • Business & Economy
  • Campus & Community
  • Health & Society
  • Media, Law & Policy
  • STEM
  • Veterans
  • |
  • Alumni
  • The Peel
  • Athletics
Sections
  • All News
  • Arts & Culture
  • Business & Economy
  • Campus & Community
  • Health & Society
  • Media, Law & Policy
  • STEM
  • Veterans
  • |
  • Alumni
  • The Peel
  • Athletics
  • Home
  • About
  • Faculty Experts
  • For The Media
  • Videos
  • Topics
    • Alumni
    • Events
    • Faculty
    • Library
    • Research
    • Students
    • All Topics
  • Contact
  • Submit
Media, Law & Policy

Free Speech Expert Roy Gutterman Explains the SCOTUS Decisions on Two First Amendment Cases

Monday, June 19, 2017, By Ellen Mbuqe
Share
facultyfree speechNewhouse School of Public Communications

Roy Gutterman, Syracuse University Associate Professor and Director of The Tully Center for Free Speech, comments about the recent Supreme Court decision on Lee v. Tam and Packingham v. North Carolina.

Lee v. Tam

“Matal v. Tam, formerly Lee v. Tam, decided today (Monday, June 19) by the Supreme Court, makes sense in a lot of ways.  Registering a trademark does not mean that word or group of words is government speech, which would have allowed the government to regulate a message or empower the government to censor an offensive message. The opinion today reiterates a bold First Amendment principle that our laws protect even speech we find offensive or hateful,” says Gutterman.

This case involved a band, The Slants, which sought to register its name for a trademark as an effort to reclaim the epithet from its derogatory and hateful origins.  When the Patent and Trademark Office denied the application citing an anti-disparagement provision in the trademark law, the band leader litigated, arguing that the government was suppressing his First Amendment rights to express himself.

“This opinion delves into some interesting doctrine on the history, purpose and application of trademark law as well as how trademark law relates to speech in general,” says Gutterman. “By rejecting the trademark law’s disparagement clause, the court is making a statement that the Patent and Trademark Office and our trademark laws in general should not pass judgment on content, even offensive slogans.”

Packingham v. North Carolina

“In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court recognized the growing role of the internet, particularly social media, as a place where First Amendment protections need to be guarded.  This case involved a state law barring registered sex offenders from accessing social media.  A law like this could render a certain group of citizens totally removed from modern communications.  Speech and access to others’ speech are fundamental rights under the First Amendment, and the court properly extends this to social media,” says Gutterman.

 

  • Author
  • Faculty Experts

Ellen Mbuqe

  • Roy Gutterman

  • Recent
  • Confronting ‘Who We Are”
    Tuesday, January 19, 2021, By News Staff
  • Arts and Sciences Welcomes New Director of Forensics Kathleen Corrado
    Tuesday, January 19, 2021, By Dan Bernardi
  • University College Announces Online Degree in Computer Programming
    Tuesday, January 19, 2021, By Eileen Jevis
  • Stadium Testing Center Closed for Planned Enhancements Wednesday, Jan. 20
    Tuesday, January 19, 2021, By News Staff
  • Sound Beat: Access Audio Offering Children’s Audiobooks about Enslaved People by Cheryl Wills ’89
    Tuesday, January 19, 2021, By Cristina Hatem

More In Media, Law & Policy

Confronting ‘Who We Are”

Verena Erlenbusch-Anderson, associate professor of philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences, wrote an op-ed for History News Network titled “Confronting ‘Who We Are.’” Erlenbusch-Anderson specializes in political philosophy and often teaches courses on the philosophy of law. After…

‘After Capitol Breach, It Will Be Even Harder To Protest in Washington’

Lynne Adrine, director of the D.C. Graduate Program and adjunct professor of broadcast and digital journalism in the Newhouse School, wrote an op-ed for Syracuse.com titled “After Capitol breach, it will be even harder to protest in Washington.” Adrine has…

‘When FOIA Goes to Court: 20 Years of Freedom of Information Act Litigation by News Organizations and Reporters’

In 2020, news organizations and individual reporters filed 122 different Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to compel disclosure of federal government records. A new report by the FOIA Project, which aims to provide the public with timely and complete…

‘Why Every Company Needs To Share Its Mission in 2021’

Jim Olson, professor of practice of public relations in the Newhouse School, wrote an op-ed for Fast Company titled “Why every company needs to share its mission in 2021.” Olson had an extensive 25-year career in corporate communications, working for some…

Roy Gutterman: First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Capitol Riots, Violence

The U.S. Capitol descended into chaos on Jan. 6 as pro-Trump demonstrations and protests turned into violent riots. Peaceful protest is protected under the First Amendment, but where do today’s events stand? Roy Gutterman is an expert on communications law,…

Subscribe to SU Today

If you need help with your subscription, contact sunews@syr.edu.

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • @SyracuseUNews
  • Youtube
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • @SyracuseU
  • @SyracuseUNews
  • @SUCampus
  • Social Media Directory
  • Accessibility
  • Privacy
  • Campus Status
  • Syracuse.edu
© 2021 Syracuse University News. All Rights Reserved.