The authoritarian left is determined to silence speech that they claim is offensive or hateful. They essentially want to establish laws that prohibit “hate speech.” Fortunately, any time they try, the Supreme Court, using the First Amendment, stops them from succeeding.

For example, a band recently decided to trademark their name. Unfortunately, when they applied, they were told the name was considered racist “hate speech,” and because of this, their application was denied. Filled with righteous indignation, the band filed a lawsuit. When the Supreme Court heard the band’s case, they unanimously ruled that “hate speech” can, in fact, be trademarked.

Specifically, in an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment earlier this week. The case they decided, Matal v. Tam, involved an Asian-American Band named “The Slants.’” Their frontman, Simon Tam, filed a lawsuit against Joseph Matal, the Interim Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) after they prevented the band from trademarking their name.

Tam claimed that he was simply trying to “take back” the word “slants,” which has been traditionally used as a racial slur. “We grew up and the notion of having slanted eyes was always considered a negative thing,” explained Tam. “Kids would pull their eyes back in a slant-eyed gesture to make fun of us….I wanted to change it to something that was powerful, something that was considered beautiful or a point of pride instead,” he continued.

The PTO, on the other hand, claimed that the name was a form of “hate speech.” To justify the denial, they cited the Lanham Act, which prohibited any trademarks that could “disparage…or bring…into contemp[t] or disrepute…[any] persons, living or dead.”

Ultimately, the Court decided with Tam and the First Amendment. In their decision, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the “disparagement clause” has unintended consequences. “The clause reaches any trademark that disparages any person, group, or institution,” he noted, adding, “it applies to trademarks like the following: ‘Down with racists,’ ‘Down with sexists,’ ‘Down with homophobes.’ It is not an anti-discrimination clause; it is a happy-talk clause. In this way, it goes much further than is necessary to serve the interest asserted.” Alito also suggested that protecting any person, living or dead, was unreasonable. “Is it conceivable that commerce would be disrupted by a trademark saying: ‘James Buchanan was a disastrous president’ or ‘Slavery is an evil institution?’” he asked rhetorically.

However, Alito made it clear that even if the policy was more narrowly written, it would still be unconstitutional. “[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend…strikes at the heart of the First Amendment ” stated Alito. “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate,’” he added.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate, concurring opinion. “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all,” he argued, adding, “the First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.”

Lee Rowland, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, praised the court’s decision. “The government’s misguided effort to protect minorities from disparagement instead hurt members of that very community by hindering their right to compete in the marketplace of ideas,” noted Rowland. “Fortunately, today’s opinion prevents the kind of absurd outcome that results when the government plays speech police,” he continued.

The court’s unanimous decision sends a powerful message to the rest of the country. It shows that while the court may be divided on countless other issues when it comes to free speech, they are united.