State Lands Commission because some of the land is public trust, but for all intensive purpose the Agencies Program at rincon point south beach is finished. None the less we have Land Use Authority until 2021 and because of that we have begun discussionwise the Planning Department of the transfer of the property to the Planning Department because we have no enforceable obligations in the rincon point south beach and technically dont have the resources to devote significant staff time or other resources to review projects that may come in. Given that it is complete, we dont expect it will be any new projects in the near future. The delegation agreement that is proposed for you would give the Planning Department and the commission the authority to apply the redevelopment plan and design for development controls together. They constitute the redevelopment requirements for land use and design in the area. We have used delegation agreements in the past in other project areas. We have curren
Are and doing what you are doing and particularly want to thank vice chair davis for the work she does with you and bringing you to the Human Rights Commission. So, tonight we are finished. Once again, thank you to all the nominees you do amazing work and sorry we couldnt have everyone in here tonight and highlight that but thank you to the award ease and look forward to assist you in the work you do and bring your ideas to the Human Rights Commission about how to be involved in the work of the community and come to the commission so you can hear about the work we are doing with the Mayors Office and board of supervisors and City Government to identify implicit bias and Structural Racism and bias and end it. So, on that note, we are adjourned. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Heat waves. Massive heat waves. Tick. Severe droughts. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Devastating. Devastating hurricanes. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick. Tick tick tick tick tick tick our future. Tick
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