04.11.2014 Views

cyckV4

cyckV4

cyckV4

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Intellectual Property & the First Amendment 97<br />

We perceive no basis on which to hold that the principle underlying our decision in<br />

Schacht does not apply to this case. To conclude that the government may permit designated<br />

symbols to be used to communicate only a limited set of messages would be to enter territory<br />

having no discernible or defensible boundaries. Could the government, on this theory,<br />

prohibit the burning of state flags? Of copies of the Presidential seal? Of the Constitution? In<br />

evaluating these choices under the First Amendment, how would we decide which symbols<br />

were sufficiently special to warrant this unique status? To do so, we would be forced to<br />

consult our own political preferences, and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that<br />

the First Amendment forbids us to do. See Carey v. Brown (1980).<br />

REHNQUIST, C.J., Dissenting Opinion.<br />

. . . Only two Terms ago, in San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States<br />

Olympic Committee (1987), the Court held that Congress could grant exclusive use of the<br />

word “Olympic” to the United States Olympic Committee. The Court thought that this<br />

restrictio[n] on expressive speech properly [was] characterized as<br />

incidental to the primary congressional purpose of encouraging and<br />

rewarding the USOC’s activities.<br />

As the Court stated,<br />

when a word [or symbol] acquires value “as the result of organization<br />

and the expenditure of labor, skill, and money” by an entity, that entity<br />

constitutionally may obtain a limited property right in the word [or<br />

symbol].<br />

Id. at 532, quoting International News Service v. Associated Press (1918). Surely<br />

Congress or the States may recognize a similar interest in the flag.<br />

H.R. 2723<br />

102d Congress (1st Session)<br />

To grant the United States a copyright to the Flag of the United States<br />

and to impose criminal penalties for the destruction of a copyrighted Flag.<br />

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES<br />

June 20, 1991<br />

Mr. TORRICELLI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the<br />

Committee on the Judiciary<br />

A BILL<br />

To grant the United States a copyright to the Flag of the United States and to<br />

impose criminal penalties for the destruction of a copyrighted Flag.<br />

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of<br />

America in Congress assembled,<br />

SECTION 1. United States Granted Copyright to the Flag of the United States.<br />

The United States is hereby granted a copyright to the Flag of the United States.<br />

SEC. 2. License To Manufacture, Sell, or Distribute the Flag of the United States.<br />

The United States hereby grants a license to any person to manufacture in the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!