We leave is not. This bill invites us we leave is not. This bill invites us to surrender all power and influence over that question to the government and to ministers. That will betray everything we were sent here to do. Were following that debate through the afternoon as it emerges dozens of tory mps have signed a letter warning the government not to keep the country in the eu by stealth. Also in the next hour the crisis in myanmar continues. Tens of thousands of Muslim Rohingya refugees continue fleeing the country to bangladesh after nearly two weeks of violence and Prince George starts his first day at school with a handshake, escorted by his father prince william. Good afternoon and welcome to bbc news. One of the most powerful storms on record Hurricane Irma is continuing to devastate parts of the caribbean. It has almost completely destroyed the islands of barbuda and st martin ten people, including a child, have been killed and its feared that number will rise. The storm has no
Disparagement provision placed be placed on speech itself. It has historically been much more tied to First Amendment values, to the incentivizeation of Free Expression. Part of that seems to me to ignore the fact that we have a culture in which we had tshirts and logos and rock bands and so forth are expressing the point of view they are using the market to express views. I mean certainly disparagement wouldnt work with copyright. Thats a powerful important Government Program. Ret melet me say two or three things before that. Music the slants are expressing views on social and political issues. They have a First Amendment right to do that. Theyre able to copyright their songs and get intellectual Property Protection that way. If congress attempted to prohibit them either have having copyright protection or copyright registration on their music, that would pose a much more substantial First Amendment issue. I was somewhat surprised that in your brief you couldnt bring yourself to say t
May it please the court. The provision at issue in the case, 15 u. S. Beliefs or National Symbols. Based on that provision, the pto denied to region the slants, as a service mark of the band. It did not limit the ability to use the mark in commerce or to otherwise engage in expression or debate on any subject that he wishes. Because of the disparagement provision restricts the program and not speech, it does not violate the First Amendment. It was a copy righted Government Program . I would say copright and c y copyright registration is tied to values of Free Expression. The part that seems to me that ignore the fact that we have a culture in which we have tshirts and logos and rock bands and so forth, but we are expressing a pouint of view, thy are using the market to express views. Disparagement would not clearly work with copyright, that is a powerful, important Government Program. Through their music, the slants are expressing views on social and political issues. They are able to
Did not limit a respondents ability to engage in expression or debate on any subject he wishes. Because section 52 as disparagement provision places restrictions on certain areas, it does not violate the First Amendment. I cooperate of a Government Program . It has historically been more tied to First Amendment values. To the incentivizing of Free Expression. Factat seems to ignore the that we have a culture in which logos, rockrched, bands, expressing a point of view. Using the market to express views. Disparagements would not work with copyrights. As a powerful Government Program. Let me say two or three things about that. There is no question that through their music, the slants views onssing their issues. Theyre are able to get intellectual Property Protection that way. If they were prevented from having copyright protection or registration on their music, that would pose much more substantial First Amendment issues. Im surprised that you could not bring yourself to say that the go
City of miami. Mr. Chief justice the question is if whether the city can sue under one of the most important laws of the Fair Housing Act the question the answer is yes are sometimes. That would eviscerate g. O. P. Doctrines of the court of proximate cause but it cannot be never because the city can identify it its own interest such as expenditures to combat the racial misconduct in third the lawsuit looks out proximate cause because the injury that it seeks to remedy is unrelated and several steps removed from any alleged acts of petitioner. Could do legally do that . So please tell us. But under this scenario so can you tell us under what circumstances could act suit . Justice ginsberg of existing law identify is one is like a haven situation is combating it discrimination so to take those allegations and make them to be out the discriminatory loans and had to expend the funds that was very much like the of onetoone relationship and by proximate cause. But they were not city employee