Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-302_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

7 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

originate in a different part of our brains than most other 
words.  Id., at 250.  And these types of swear words tend 
to  attract  more  attention  and  are  harder  to  forget  than
other words.  See Jay, Caldwell-Harris, & King, Recalling 
Taboo  and  Nontaboo  Words,  121  Am.  J.  Psych.  83,  83–86
(2008)  (collecting  research).  Notably,  that  has  remained 
true even as the list of offensive swear words has changed 
over  time:  In  the  last  few  centuries,  the  list  has  evolved 
away from words of religious disrespect and toward words 
that  are  sexually  explicit  or  that  crudely  describe  bodily 
functions.  Mohr 253.  And the list of swear words may be
evolving  yet  again,  perhaps  in  the  direction  of  including 
race-based epithets.  Id., at 254, 256. 

These  attention-grabbing  words,  though  financially
valuable to some businesses that seek to attract interest in 
their products, threaten to distract consumers and disrupt 
commerce.  And  they  may  lead  to  the  creation  of  public
spaces that many will find repellant, perhaps on occasion 
creating  the  risk  of  verbal  altercations  or  even  physical 
confrontations.  (Just  think  about  how  you  might  react  if 
you  saw  someone  wearing  a  t-shirt  or  using  a  product 
emblazoned  with  an  odious  racial  epithet.)    The  Govern-
ment thus has an interest in seeking to disincentivize the 
use  of  such  words  in  commerce  by  denying  the  benefit  of 
trademark  registration.  Cf.  Brandenburg  v.  Ohio,  395 
U. S.  444,  447  (1969)  (per  curiam)  (permitting  regulation
of words “directed to inciting or  producing imminent law-
less action” and “likely to incite or produce such action”). 

Finally,  although  some  consumers  may  be  attracted  to
products  labeled  with  highly  vulgar  or  obscene  words, 
others  may  believe  that  such  words  should  not  be  dis-
played  in  public  spaces  where  goods  are  sold  and  where
children  are  likely  to  be  present.    They  may  believe  that
trademark  registration  of  such  words  could  make  it  more
likely  that  children  will  be  exposed  to  public  displays
involving  such  words.  To  that  end,  the  Government  may