Citizens First Cyber Security Professionals




Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.

Connect via Facebook

Connect via Facebook

Member Poll

There are no polls defined.


You must login to post a message.

02-12-2017 12:08
Yo' Citizens, How you doing today. Todays Lesson plans & post will consist of, How to give spammers a taste of their own medicine! Cool

20-10-2017 11:38
Yo' Citizens, As per your request. A new forum section, 'Suspicious IP Addresses' will be completed today! Cool

20-10-2017 11:30
Yo' Good Morning Citizens. I hope that you are all having a great and cyber-secure day! Grin

09-10-2017 11:10
Yo' Good Morning Citizens! Wink I hope that you had a cyber-secure weekend! Grin

03-10-2017 10:44
Yo' Citizens, good morning. I have some pretty serious vulnerabilities to share with you, today. I will have them up shortly! Cool

Welcome Citizens

Welcome to, Citizens First Cyber Security Professionals.

The Individual Citizen Specific, Cyber Security Investigative Services Firm. Cyber Security Web Forum and Educational Cyber Security Dojo.

Geared strictly to helping Individual Citizens and Small Businesses! Address unwanted cyber security intrusions and hacking incidents!

Supreme Court Rejects Expansion of Government-Speech Doctrine In Tam Case - Via - EFF

JournalYo' Greetings Citizens,

Supreme Court Rejects Expansion of Government-Speech Doctrine In Tam Case - Via - EFF

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Matal v. Tam striking down the trademark non-disparagement requirement as unconstitutional is a big victory for the First Amendment. First, the Court strongly pushed back against the expansion of the government-speech doctrine, perhaps the biggest current threat to free speech jurisprudence. Second, the Court strengthened a position EFF has long advocated—that intellectual property rights and First Amendment rights must be balanced against each other rather than weighted in favor of the former.

The case arose when the band The Slants was denied a federal trademark based on a federal law that prohibits the registration of a trademark that may “disparage . . . or bring into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” The Court found that provision violated the First Amendment. It may no longer be used as a basis for denying trademark registration.

EFF filed an amicus brief [PDF] in the case with the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, advancing many of the arguments adopted by the Court.

Pushing Back on the Dangerous Government-Speech Doctrine

The Governments’ primary argument in defense of the disparaging trademark ban was that registered trademarks were “government-speech,” not the speech of the trademark owner. That is, in denying registration, the government was not punishing The Slants because it disagreed with the viewpoint the mark expressed; rather, the government was simply choosing not to include disparaging terms in its own speech.

In addition, the Court explained that the government does not have a greater ability to discriminate against disfavored viewpoints in registering trademarks merely because trademarks are “commercial speech.” Although commercial speech in many contexts gets somewhat diminished First Amendment protections, even commercial speech is not subject to the government’s viewpoint discrimination..++...

Please Read The Full Story here:

Thank You For Your Time, Citizens. I hope that you have a great and cyber-secure day!

Thank You Citizen,
The Administration


No Comments have been Posted.

Post Comment

Please Login to Post a Comment.


Rating is available to Members only.

Please login or register to vote.

No Ratings have been Posted.
top image scrolling tools
Render time: 0.08 seconds
256,206 unique visits