Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 27

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

23 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of ALITO, J. 

of  ideas  may  not  be  prohibited  merely  because  the  ideas
are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.”  Street 
v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 592 (1969).  See also Texas v. 
Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989) (“If there is a bedrock 
principle  underlying  the  First  Amendment,  it  is  that  the
government  may  not  prohibit  the  expression  of  an  idea
simply  because  society  finds  the  idea  itself  offensive  or 
disagreeable”); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 
46, 55–56 (1988); Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 615 
(1971);  Bachellar  v.  Maryland,  397  U. S.  564,  567  (1970); 
Tinker  v.  Des  Moines  Independent  Community  School 
Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 509–514 (1969); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 
U. S. 536, 551 (1965); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 
229,  237–238  (1963);  Terminiello  v.  Chicago,  337  U. S.  1, 
4–5  (1949);  Cantwell  v.  Connecticut,  310  U. S.  296,  311 
(1940);  Schneider  v.  State  (Town  of  Irvington),  308  U. S. 
147,  161  (1939);  De Jonge  v.  Oregon,  299  U. S.  353,  365 
(1937).

For  this  reason,  the  disparagement  clause  cannot  be
saved by analyzing it as a type of government program in
which  some  content-  and  speaker-based  restrictions  are
permitted.16 

IV 

Having concluded that the disparagement clause cannot 
be  sustained  under  our  government-speech  or  subsidy 
cases  or  under  the  Government’s  proposed  “government-
program”  doctrine,  we  must  confront  a  dispute  between 
the  parties  on  the  question  whether  trademarks  are  com-
mercial speech and are thus subject to the relaxed scrutiny
outlined  in  Central  Hudson  Gas  &  Elec.  Corp.  v.  Public 
Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980).  The Govern-
ment  and  amici  supporting  its  position  argue  that  all 
—————— 

16 We leave open the question whether this is the appropriate frame-
work for analyzing free speech challenges to provisions of the Lanham 
Act.