Will have to get back to you. Hasrter general kelly become a political conversation. We believe the last few minutes of todays White House Briefing to go to the Heritage Foundation for a panel on freedom of speech, what does it mean . Oflysts will debate if vincent van names should be allowed to receive the federal trademark as one example. Introduction are being made. You are watching live coverage on cspan. Hosting our discussion this afternoon is tiffany bates, legal policy analyst. She researches and writes about records, judicial nominations, and other constitutional issues. She is also cohost of heritages 101 podcast. She was a regular contributor to the daily signal, heritages multimedia organization, and she also coordinates a pellet advocacy program. Please join me in welcoming tiffani bates. Tiffani. [applause] thank you, and welcome to the Heritage Foundation, and thanks for joining us to celebrate free speech week by highlighting recent First Amendment victories. I look at my remarks and introduction short so we can get to what we are all here for. [laughter] the summer, the Supreme Court protect thehat we freedom to express the thought that we hate. While the freedom of speech as long been the core of our free society, it has really come under sharp attack. The courts however have pushed back over the last few years, continually extending First Amendment protection to what some call free speech. About ae rea will hear brewery after his application was denied to register a beer label. We will then see a short video from the bass player of the band afteraseed the Trademark Office refused to trademark their name. In a unanimous win, the Supreme Court found the disparagement clause violated the First Amendment. Judge elio wrote that such a law offends bedrock First Amendment principles. The speech may not be banned on the ground that stresses ideas that offend. Finally, we will talk about the fate of the Washington Redskins trademark that the government canceled under the same disparagement clause. As the Supreme Court handed down its opinions in june, all parties to the redskins case and the department of justice sent letters to the Fourth Circuit control to the case position and the court must enter judgment for the redskins. It has been four months, but the Fourth Circuit has not been so. If the court taking its time or try to distinguish the case in order to rule against the redskins . We will explore the future of free speech with our great panel of experts. Jim is busy general partner of Flying Dog Brewery jim is the ceo and general partner of Flying Dog Brewery. Is known for its worldclass beers combined with distinctive art. Jim is as passionate about the First Amendment as he is about the beer he produces, and he has been an advocate for the freedom of speech since the 1970s. In 2015, using damages awarded by michigan after its court battle, jim founded First Amendment society, a nonprofit Whose Mission is to raise Public Awareness about First Amendment principles. Recipient of numerous awards for his business prowess and dedication to the First Amendment. In a bachelors and masters degree in economics from the university of missouri, and he holds a degree in brewery science. Trevor is a Research Fellow in the cato Institutes Center for constitutional studies and managing editor of the Supreme Court view. His Research Interests includes constitutional law, civil and criminal law, legal and political philosophy, and legal history. His writing an Academic Work has appeared in many news outlets and journals across the country. He is also the cohost of free thought, a weekly podcast that covers th topic the libertarian theory, history, philosophy. He holds a ba in philosophy from the university of colorado and a degree from the university of denver. Appellate litigator. Since starting his own practice in 1997, he has been involved in appeals on a broad range of legal issues, including the first, second, fifth, and 14th amendment and other state and federal constitutional and statutory matters. He has been involved in over 100 Supreme Court matters, including petitions represent half a dozen parties and filing iefs. 60 bre he holds a ba from Dartmouth College and a degree from columbia. He served to Doug Ginsburg on the d c circuit and just as commerce on the Supreme Court. We will hand it over to jim. Thank you, tiffany, for inviting me to be on this panel and thank you to the Heritage Foundation for the fine would you on a day in and day out basis. As most of you know and probably better than i, free speech as we know it today did not really exist before the 1960s and yet i am a child of the 1950s, so i observed the development of First Amendment law, and by the 1970s, it was passionately committed to the principles of the First Amendment, both as one of the most basic human rights and the First Amendment as the rockstar of the constitution as floyd abrams ascribes it. To master freedom, the financial freedom, or intellectual freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. One of the First Amendments in my business intersect and was in 1955 when we released a beer, road dog, with an original label by the internationally famous ralph stedman. He was painting the slide on the bbc. There is a fun back story behind it Robert Bentley in an effort to poke the bbc a little bit and as it related to an essay that hunter wrote for the release of this beer, he scribbled on there in his fountain pen font, good beer, no. [laughter] we received the label and loved it. We released it in denver , colorado. Got huge press, both for the beer and the distinctive label art. This was back in 1995. But a competitor complained to the Colorado Liquor Commission that the word was an of obscenity. The commission agreed and commanded that we remove the product on the shelf or our license is suspended. We pulled a quarter Million Dollars worth of beer from the shelf, released the beer with good beer, no censorship. [laughter] theot surprisingly, sued Colorado Liquor Commission, and six is later, the colorado Supreme Court overruled the Colorado Liquor Commission. The word is not an obscenity. In 2009, we released a beer, art, with original label and the name of the beer is raging. As some of you may or may not know, most states require some sort of submission of labels before you sell the beer. It is a routine administrative process. We do hundreds of these a year. On but announced to me, this beer was not approved for sale in michigan. It was rejected. We had shipped some. It was a mistake. Michigans response was clear and immediate. If we do not remove the beer from the shelvews within 24 lves within 24 hours, the state police will be sent out to remove it, and i could be charged with a felony. We removed the beer. [laughter] i appealed the decision of the Michigan Liquor control commission. And for all of us who are concerned about and cherish our constitutional freedoms, we should be somewhat concerned with some of the reasons they gave for not liking this beer. The name, the art, or the label copy. But some of the reasons that the appeal hearing were that Oprah Winfrey does not allow that word on her show. Wonderful. [laughter] i am waiting for a reference to the constitution because they have already assured me this was not a First Amendment issue. Another thing that they told me was that the Westminster Kennel Club no longer uses that word to refer to female dogs. Ok. I get it. They also said that it has to be removed from the shelf because ce ofere passive observant this beer on the shop will incite violent action. For use, the commission years, the commission rejected any beer with that word in it because they did not like the word. The bedrock rentable of the First Amendment is the government cannot control or suppress speech just because they do not like the content of it. Not surprisingly, we sued the state of michigan. Michigan Liquor Control Commission and commissioners as individuals. It was in the western district, the first hearing. Of theing was in favor Michigan Liquor control commissioners, and the court extended to them both quasijudicial and judicial immunity. Not really sure if this is a violation of your First Amendment rights, but it does not really matter because they were immune from being sued. That was appealed to the sixth circuit, and after four more years of waiting come in the sixth circuit ruled unanimously in our favor with the dissenting but concurring opinion further liablenot only are they to be sued for their violation, a possible violation of the First Amendment rights, but it is a clear blatant violation of flying dogs First Amendment rights. We went back and settled with michigan. I used the proceeds of that to create the First Amendment society. It is a nonprofit. It is rather new, but we have a Speaker Series that we have constitutional attorneys talking about everything from fcc regulations to the First Amendment. Scholarshiporing a for Investigative Journalism at the university of maryland working in conjunction with a lot of liberty oriented groups to speak at free speech events and College Campuses, so this is a big part of what we do. In short lies a brewery here talking about the First Amendment because i have spent 12 of the last 22 years in litigation or in court suing states because they personally did not care for a beer label. Thank you. [applause] next, we will watch a short video from simon, who is sorry he cannot join us in person. Hello from sydney, australia. My name is simon, founder of the worlds first all automation dance rock band. I am sorry i cannot be there in person joining you today. I started this band over a decade ago because i wanted to create something that would empower Asian American communities, but it ended up me tosomething that took a legal battle that lasted eight years against the u. S. Trademark office. I originally chose the band name so long ago because i wanted to change something that was a point of shame for me as a kid to a simple empowerment as an adult. The story of me surviving being would resonate with marginalized communities also have a difficult time with their identities, so we wanted to read wordpriate this outdated and what made it popular to begin with. Eyeds used as slant against asianamericans, but it was a term that our community struggled to use in the 1980s and 1990s as a part of private instead. Pride instead. We recently applied for the trademark eight years ago because it is something that is really important for bands to do. It is a known part of the career as you are making national headlines, you go ahead and register the mark so you protect your brand. The whole point of the trademark system is to protect consumers. It would not help people if they were 10 bands out there all with the exact same name, so we created a system where people can apply for intellectual rights and make sure there are not imitators. That way if you are buying concert tickets to see a band coming can be assured that it is the right band. Traditionally a place for government to decide morality on. It is more of a filing system. If you dont have the requirement to be a business that you should have a legitimate business and protect come about ass simple process changed into a much larger fight when the government decided that they would know what is best for the asia Asian American community. They told me the name the slants is disparaging to people of Asian American dissent even though we had no complaints for from our community. For the government to deny you rights based on this complaint, they have to see that it is a substantial composite that a group finds it offensive, but they did not find a single Asian American who was offended by the name. Websitesthey relied on and quoting from anonymous folks on message boards. When we decided that they want to strip the agency of our ability to determine what is right for ourselves, we decided to appeal and continue fighting. After we brought independent national surveys, linguistic s experts, in over 3000 asianamerican leaders standing up and telling the government they were actually run on the issue, we still lost. The government decided they knew what was best, wit so started asking questions. Slant is an inherent racial slur like you think it is, why have you registered it so many times before, literally thousands of times . There are hundreds of applications for the term, but many of them being registered. Mine is the only case in u. S. History to be denied slant on of friends that it is a frien s offends asian people. Therefore, there is an association of the disparaging term. They said we are too asian. In their mind, you go to our website and look at our pictures and clips of live concerts, people would automatically assume the racial slur because of our ethnic identities and not any other possible definition in the dictionary. But it is really more of a convoluted way of saying anyone can register slants as long as they are not asian. Once i heard that, i decided we need to continue fighting because the government, even though its intention was to protect marginalized communities, was actually using peoples race against them. Political identities, sexual orientation, gender, and anything that was considered controversial by the government would be grounds for them to deny us rights. And so we appealed. Eventually won the federal circuit. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was being used against us was unconstitutional. Nine of the 12 federal judges agreed that we should have the right to register our band name. Beyond that, we kept fighting eventually went to the Supreme Court, were we were victorious. One of the few unanimous rulings in Supreme Court history. 80. Every single justice agreed that the law was unconstitutional. Not only was it unconstitutionally vague, but it was also engaging in viewpoint discrimination. For me, this experience has been exciting, inspiring, and incredibly frustrating. They reminded me how important it is to protect free speech. A lifetime stop people present this false dichotomy that you need to have civil rights in one corner and Civil Liberties in the other, but the reality is that if you want to protect civil rights, you have to begin by protecting Civil Liberties because those tend to be the rights that marginalized groups do not enjoy the most. We can have the government winners and losers in terms of who gets protection, who gets to have the Fire Departments serving them when a house is on fire, who gets protection during a protest, or even who gets to register trademarks or not. The government is there to protect us, not infringe upon our rights. So i am thrilled that the decision was made and unanimous, striking a resounding chord. It was bipartisan. We all have a vested stake in the rights of the First Amendment and how important it is to fight for those rights. For me, i believe i will continue fighting on behalf of marginalized groups because that is what i am most passionate about. If and when those skirmishes and issues intersect free speech, i definitely know where to stand on that, so thank you so much for listening. [applause] thank you, everyone, for coming. Thank you to heritage, tiffany, for the beer. I know flying dog is actually from colorado, too. This is the brief that i got signed by simon. I will be auctioning it off later. I wrote a good part of this. It is on behalf of gedo and a basket of deplorable people in favor of the band. I had a particular expertise writing for this group because i have been in offense of bands and i know a lot about offensive music. They came to me and said you could write all of the band names and every thing you want to put in here. That is what i did. It is important because we are talking about what bands are communicating with their band names, and i think this is an underappre