Mobile devices and sounds are turned off as he began and of course anyone watching on line is welcome to send a question at any time simply emailing speaker heritage. Org protesting our discussion this afternoon is Tiffany Bates legal policy and on the at our center for legal and judicial studies. She researches and writes about courts judicial nominations and other constitutional issues. She is also cohost of scotus 101 podcasts. She is a regular contributor to the daily signal media organization. She also coordinates the appellate advocacy program. Please join me in welcoming Tiffany Bates. Tiffany. [applause] thank you and welcome to Heritage Foundation and thanks for joining us to celebrate free speech read by highlighting recent First Amendment victories and hopefully as we will discuss later on the courts. Ill keep my remarks short so we can get to what we are all here for, the beer. This summer the Supreme Court reiterated that are free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedoms expressed. Love the freedom of speech has long been the core of our free society it is recently come under sharp attack through the courts however have pushed back over the last few years continually extending First Amendment protection for what someone called today we will highlight three cases. First to hear about Flying Dog Brewery a sixyear fight with the Michigan Liquor control commission after tonight flying dog applications to register a beer label to one of my favorite beers. We will look at a short video from simon tam of the rock band that took their case to the Supreme Court. After the Patent Trademark Office refused to enter their trademark. In a unanimous judgment they found that violated the First Amendment. Justice alito wrote a law offense bedrock First Amendment principles. Speaking speech and of the band on the ground that oppresses ideas. Finally well talk about the fate of the Washington Redskins trademark that the government canceled under that same clause. After the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in june all parties and the department of justice. The case control the position of the case in the court must enter judgment. Four months since the fort Fourth Circuit has not done so. His m. Are trying to distinguished the case in order to rule against the redskins . We will explore the future of free speech with a great panel of experts. Jim caruso ceo and a Flying Dog Brewery. Flying dog is a 32nd largest brewery in a country known for its worldclass beers combined with distinctive label art created by an artist. Jim is as passionate about this First Amendment as eight is the beer he produces. 2015 damages after his court battle jim found the First Amendment society Nonprofit Mission to raise Public Awareness about First Amendment principles. Jim is a recipient of numerous awards for his dedication to the First Amendment. He also fasteners and a masters degree in economics at the university of missouri and holds a degree in brewing science from it its a two. Trevor burris is a research in and the center for cottagers and studies and managing editor of his research enters into constitutional law civil and criminal law legal law and legal history. His writing an Academic Press appeared in many journals across the country. Hes also the cohost the free that a weekly podcast that covers the topic, covers topics in history and philosophy via trevor holds a va from the university of colorado and a j. D. From the university of denver. Finally erik jaffe is an appellate litigator with the practice covering a wide variety of these issues in state and federal appellate courts. Since starting his practice in 1997 eric has been involved in a broad range of legal issues including the first second fifth and 14th amendment and other state and federal constitutional statutory matters. Eric has been involved in over 100 Supreme Court matters including search petitions representing half a dozen parties and filing over 60 amicus briefs. Eric holds up dna and genetics at Dartmouth College and a j. D. From columbia. He served as a law clerk for Justice Ginsburgs ginsburg and Clarence Clarence thomas on the Supreme Court. Thank you tiffany for inviting me to be on this panel at thank you for the Heritage Foundation for the fine work you do day in and day out. As most of you know and probably better than i free speech as we know it today didnt really exist before the 1960s. Im a child of the 50s so i have observed the First Amendment law and by the 1970s i 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 constitution is floyd abrams describes it master forgets a foundation of freedom or intellectual freedom Political Freedom and economic freedom. Where the First Amendment and might just as intersected was first in 1995 when released the beer road dog with the original label art by the International Famous artist ralph stennett. We knew ralph threw hunter s. Thompson and ralph was painting this label live on the bbc. Theres a fun back story behind it but and partly an effort to put the bbc little bit and is a related to it that hunter wrote for the release of this beer he scribbled on their in his fountain pen font good beer, no ship. [laughter] we received a label and he loved it. We released it in Denver Colorado and it got huge press for the beer and the distinctive label in 1995 but a competitor complained to the Colorado Liquor Commission that the word was an obscenity so the Colorado Liquor Commission agreed and demanded that we removed the product from the shelf or they would suspend their license. So we pulled the quarter Million Dollars worth of gear from the shelf rerelease the beer was good beer no censorship. Not surprisingly sued the Colorado Commission and the Supreme Court overruled that shit is not an obscenity. Into that family released a beer again, thank you ralph with the original label art and the name of the beer is raging bitch pities you may or may not know it varies by state. They were teen administrative unbeknownst to me this beer was not approved for sale and it was rejected. We had ship some. It was a mistake to michigans response was clear and immediate immediate. If we dont remove the beer from the shelves within 24 hours the state police with the sent out to confiscate it and not 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 our constitutional freedoms we should be somewhat concerned with some of the reasons they gave for not liking this beer. Unlike anything about by the way. The name, the art but some would reason at the appeal hearing word that Oprah Winfrey did not allow that word on her show. Wonderful. I am waiting for a reference to the constitution because they have assured me its not an issue. Another thing that they told me was the Westminster Kennel Club no longer uses that word to refer to female dogs. Okay, i get it. They also said it had to be removed from the shelf because the mere passive observance of this beer on the shelf will entice people to violent action. What i didnt know at the time was that for years they had rejected the michigan control had rejected any big beer wine or spirit that had the word bitch in it simply because they didnt like the word. The government cannot suppress speech just because they dont like the topic did not surprisingly we sued the state if michigan the Michigan Liquor control commission and as individuals produced in the Western District and the ruling was in favor of liquor control for consumers both cause i judicial and judicial. Basically saying not sure if this is a violation of your rights but it doesnt really matter because you are immune from these two. That was then appealed to the sixth circuit and after four more years of waiting the circuit ruled unanimously in our favor with the dissenting vote concurring opinion further saying not only are they liable to be sued for a violation of possible violation of the First Amendment rights but they in fact it a clear blatant we went back and settled with michigan and i use the proceeds to create the First Amendment society and nonprofit. It was rather new but we have been down the Speaker Series family of constitutional series, law professor speaking about everything from ftc regulations to issues relating to the First Amendment. We are sponsoring a scholarship for Investigative Journalism at the university of maryland working in conjunction with a lot of groups to speak at free speech events and acknowledge campuses so this is a big part of what we do. Why is the brewers are talking about the First Amendment . Because i have spent 12 of the last 22 years in litigation or in court suing because they personally didnt care for a beer label. [applause] next we will watch a short video from simon tam. Spin hello from Sydney Australia australia. Im the founder and bassist of the worlds first all asianamerican dance rock band and im sorry i cant be there in person with you today. I started this band over a decade ago because i wanted to create something that would empower asianamericans but it ended up being something bad that took me into legal battle that lasted eight years against the u. S. Patent and Trademark Office. The reason we chose the band name so long ago was because i wanted to change something it was a point of shame to music into an empowerment as an adult. The stories of me surviving being elite would resonate with other marginalized communities who also had a difficult time with their identity. We wanted to reappropriate this outdated and obscure racial slur wasnt that popular to begin with. It was used as slanted eyes against asianamericans but it was at term that our community community. We thought it would be perfect that it sounded like a band that that we applied for this trademark eight years ago because its something really important for fans to do. As you are making National Headlines you protect your brand. The whole point of the trademark system is to protect consumers. There were 10 bands out there with the same name so we traded the system where a protected International Property rights in a major there werent volunteers. If you buy a concert ticket to see one band you can be assured that it is the right and. So it hasnt traditionally been a place for government to decide morality on. If you meet the requirements for your business you should be able to have a legitimate business and protect those interests. That simple process change to a much larger fight when the government decided that they would know whats best for the asianamerican community. They told me that the word slant is disparaging to the persons of asian descent even though it had no place in our community. For the government to deny you rights based on this kind of claim they have to find a substantial composite of the group to find it offensive so in this case asianamerican but throughout the last decade they did not find a single asianamerican upset by name instead of relying on web sites, asian jokes. Com and pulling from anonymous post lines. When we decided they wanted to strip the agency of our ability to determine whats right for ourselves we decided to appeal and continue fighting. After we brought the independent National Surveys linguistics experts including one of the editors of the american oxford dictionary and over 3000 asianamericans were standing up and telling the government that they were wrong on the issue we still lost. The government decided they knew what was best so we started asking questions like this if this slant isnt here racial slur why is it registered. There are literally thousands, literally hundreds of applications for the term slant and many of them were being registered. Mine is the only case in history to be denied slant on the grounds that it and we asked him why that was. This Trademark Office road is in contestable that the advocates of asian descent therefore theres an association of the disparaging term for it afterwards where to asian. If you look at our pictures and live concerts well people would assume the racial slur because of our ethnic identity and not any other possible this definition. Its a more complicit way of saying anyone can register for slant as as they are not asian. Once i saw that i began fighting because the government even though his intentions was to use protect was using peoples race against them. They found that the case, anything that was considered controversial by the government would be grounds for them to deny us rights. And so we appeal then appealed and eventually one in the federal circuit. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Obviously if you think of other bands, trying to take it back to be clean is another one youre trying to take back. Im spent trying to tweet with them but they did not return my calls. But you have other ben names that communicate what kind of things are going on. The of the pothole surfers, smash in the poon tanks, and r b banks, pussy galore, and heres the important thing, its a well covered band and im sure not surprised and they are not a String Quartet and of course there never open for paul now they couldve called themselves for Asian American men who are respectful toward diversity as a nation but i guess if you into their concert and saw them play chinese one of their lyrics its chinese, japanese, dirty needs a look at these you might be very offending that theyre playing something so offensive to you. Theres a communicative aspect ten naming your band which i think simon does a good job. Snatches the slant, Many Organizations have adopted and taken on the names there given to them by other people, this includes the jersey was, the mormons, the quakers, think about the yankees, suffragette was back in the day and of course things like pitch, queer, cracker, pastor, brings interesting questions. We have some footnotes including seinfeld or jerry suspect someone has converted to judaism so he can tell the jokes. So i can say that because then he makes fun of catholics and he said i used we catholics i can do it too. They said you can tell jokes about everyone which because there Asian American this is particularly bad that they could name themselves this. This brings up a south park scene about how we decide who decides for the community of color of Asian Americans, who decides that were offended. Theyre trying to say that we think of Asian Americans as offended theres another one called with apologies to Jesse Jacksons which says hey i just want you to know my dad apologized to jesse jackson. So im supposed to feel better now. Jesse jackson said its okay. You have these problems about who can actually validate one of these disparaging remarks and its not going to be the pto. Just to talk about the decision itself actually is three decisions we have Justice Samuel alito coming out for free speech which if you know about his jurisprudence his not been good on what we call offensive speech. He wrote are performed to National Commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious assault that occurred in this case. In the u. S. Stevens which is about videos about animals being crushed he strikes down innocent parody of valuable statute to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty. The and alvarez was a case he said the lives covered have no intrinsic valley and those mayor no First Amendment protection so he is not historically been into free speech. I think for him esau the says part of the Political Correctness. I put this in the line with the walker which is about whether the state of texas could have a license plate and a very robust confederate flag. Another thing