Yep, all true.

“you’re just wrong. I could totally explain it, but I don’t want to *b/c someone else has and you continue to revel in your profound ignorance.*”

You are simply wrong.

Damn, that was a “for the win” comment all the way. And yet he is the one with 101 stars. Because life just sucks like that sometimes.

“The reality is that in law (ANY law, trademark or criminal or whatever) precident is everything.”

“Arguing semantics doesn’t change anything.”

No, trademark protection is available under specific, delineated circumstances. The content of the trademark is the entire basis of whether it is available, and one of the criteria is whether it is objectively offensive to a group of people.

Except this isn’t a question of the government compelling private speech, it’s actually a question of a private enterprise compelling government action to enforce trademark protections that should not have been granted under the terms of the statute. The speech is protected. The name can stay. It’s the…