Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 34

4 

MATAL v. TAM 

Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

because  the  Government  thought  his  trademark  would
have that effect on at least some Asian-Americans. 

The Government may not insulate a law from charges of 
viewpoint  discrimination  by  tying  censorship  to  the  reac-
tion  of  the  speaker’s  audience.    The  Court  has  suggested
that  viewpoint  discrimination  occurs  when  the  govern-
ment intends to suppress a speaker’s beliefs, Reed, supra, 
at  ___–___  (slip  op.,  at  11–12),  but  viewpoint  discrimina-
tion need not take that form in every instance.  The dan-
ger  of  viewpoint  discrimination  is  that  the  government  is 
attempting to remove certain ideas or perspectives from a 
broader debate.  That danger is all the greater if the ideas
or perspectives are ones a particular audience might think
offensive, at least at first hearing.  An initial reaction may
prompt  further  reflection,  leading  to  a  more  reasoned, 
more tolerant position.

Indeed, a speech burden based on audience reactions is 
simply  government  hostility  and  intervention  in  a  differ-
ent  guise.  The  speech  is  targeted,  after  all,  based  on  the
government’s  disapproval  of  the  speaker’s  choice  of  mes-
sage.  And it is the government itself that is attempting in
this  case  to  decide  whether  the  relevant  audience  would 
find  the  speech  offensive.    For  reasons  like  these,  the 
Court’s  cases  have  long  prohibited  the  government  from
justifying  a  First  Amendment  burden  by  pointing  to  the 
offensiveness of the speech to be suppressed.  See ante, at 
23 (collecting examples). 

The  Government’s  argument  in  defense  of  the  statute
assumes  that  respondent’s  mark  is  a  negative  comment. 
In  addressing  that  argument  on  its  own  terms,  this  opin-
ion  is  not  intended  to  imply  that  the  Government’s  inter-
pretation  is  accurate.    From  respondent’s  submissions,  it
is  evident  he  would  disagree  that  his  mark  means  what
the Government says it does.  The trademark will have the 
effect,  respondent  urges,  of  reclaiming  an  offensive  term
for  the  positive  purpose  of  celebrating  all  that  Asian-