It not being limited. The issue is that ISU allows their trademark to be used by other advocacy groups, and has specifically singled out this group because of what it stands for. Thats most definitely a free speech issue.
way to go ISU
- Thread starter isuforlife
- Start date
It not being limited. The issue is that ISU allows their trademark to be used by other advocacy groups, and has specifically singled out this group because of what it stands for. Thats most definitely a free speech issue.
Again, how is the logo usage limiting their free speech? There isn't. Why is the logo so vital to fulfilling their advocacy? It's pathetic this is even an issue.
Its a policy that is specifically respecting a certain group, and you simply cant do that.
Not allowing a group to use a trademarked logo is no where near a free speech issue.
Should not matter when what the group is advocating is an illegal drug or anything else that is against the law.
Yes you can. Should isu probably notified them the rules were changing, yes. But up you can revoke usage of trade marks for any reason, and they pulled it because isu'a trademark was advocating an illegal activity which broke the rules.
You have failed to prove any first amendment violation. Keep trying.
The group is not advocating to do illegal drugs...they are pushing for a change of law. The first amendment is pretty clear, you can not make a law which specifically singles out a single establishment or prohibit the free exercise of speech. You cant deny the use of a logo simply based on the fact of what the group stands for.
The grey area is some student groups get to use the logo but some don't. Idk the specific details but the university should not be allowed to pick and choose which political issues they support. The pathetic thing is bc of the moral implications, all anyone is looking at is that its a group supporting marijuana. That somehow makes it ok for them to be discriminated against?
I just skimmed through the policy, and it had a lot of restrictions before the "drugs and drug paraphernalia" clause was added.
The entire banned design list:
And this clause is also in there, and I doubt it was a new one:
ISU is not a government entity that makes laws. This is as stupid as saying that someone who is talking on their phone during a movie at a movie theatre is having their free speech rights violated by being asked to leave for refusing to stop.
they are free to do with their logo as they see fit. It is ISU's property not in the public domain.
dumb.
First of all, not allowing someone to talk on a phone is no where near an issue of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean you should be able to talk wherever you want whenever you want.
Second, ISU is a public university, not private. They most defiantly are in the public domain.
They are essentially saying, as a university, students advocating for one political issue aren't going to be supported, while others supporting less touchy issues are going to be receive support from the school. You can't deny that's discrimination. This group is no different than any other group advocating for a political cause. They aren't advocating anything illegal.
What it will come down to is if they sold the shirt for profit or not. If they sold the shirt for profit it becomes a commercial use of the trademark and then it is not protected by the first amendment. If they didn't then it is more likely to be allowed. However, ISU could argue that they allowed the group to use the ISU name just not the trademarked image, in accordance with their trademark guidelines.
A policy that specifically was made to dis-allow this particular group to use its logo is an issue of free speech. The policy was not there until this group came along, and it was wrote specifically respecting this group.
Someone finally said the correct term. This could possibly be seen as discrimination. But ISU is not stopping their message or their ability to spread it.
