Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

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

3 

Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

sages  it  finds  offensive.  This  is  the  essence  of  viewpoint 
discrimination. 

The Government disputes this conclusion.  It argues, to 
begin  with,  that  the  law  is  viewpoint  neutral  because  it 
applies in equal measure to any trademark that demeans
or  offends.  This  misses  the  point.  A  subject  that  is  first
defined  by  content  and  then  regulated  or  censored  by
mandating  only  one  sort  of  comment  is  not  viewpoint 
neutral.  To  prohibit  all  sides  from  criticizing  their  oppo-
nents makes a law more viewpoint based, not less so.  Cf. 
Rosenberger, supra, at 831–832 (“The . . . declaration that 
debate  is  not  skewed  so  long  as  multiple  voices  are  si-
lenced  is  simply  wrong;  the  debate  is  skewed  in  multiple 
ways”).  The  logic  of  the  Government’s  rule  is  that  a  law 
would be viewpoint neutral even if it provided that public 
officials  could  be  praised  but  not  condemned.  The  First 
Amendment’s viewpoint neutrality principle protects more
than  the  right  to  identify  with  a  particular  side.    It  pro-
tects the right to create and present arguments for partic-
ular  positions  in  particular  ways,  as  the  speaker  chooses.
By  mandating  positivity,  the  law  here  might  silence  dis-
sent and distort the marketplace of ideas.

The Government next suggests that the statute is view-
point neutral because the disparagement clause applies to
trademarks regardless of the applicant’s personal views or
reasons for using the mark.  Instead, registration is denied
based on the expected reaction of the applicant’s audience. 
In  this  way,  the  argument  goes,  it  cannot  be  said  that 
Government  is  acting  with  hostility  toward  a  particular 
point  of  view.    For  example,  the  Government  does  not 
dispute  that  respondent  seeks  to  use  his  mark  in  a  posi-
tive way.  Indeed, respondent endeavors to use The Slants 
to  supplant  a  racial  epithet,  using  new  insights,  musical
talents,  and  wry  humor  to  make  it  a  badge  of  pride.    Re-
spondent’s  application  was  denied  not  because  the  Gov-
ernment  thought  his  object  was  to  demean  or  offend  but