meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Opening Arguments

OA165: You Heard It Here First! (Abortion Rights, Gun Control, and Offensive Trademarks)

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Law, Opinion, Politics, News, Liberal, Legal, Supremecourt, Harvard, Atheist

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

šŸ—“ļø 17 April 2018

ā±ļø 69 minutes

šŸ§¾ļø Download transcript

Summary

Note:Ā  The "C" segment of this episode (and the show notes) contain hilarious explicit language in order to discuss a recent development in trademark law.Ā  You've been warned! In the preshow, we tamp down on some unwarranted liberal freakout regarding a recent White House Executive Order regarding the last few fraying strands of our social safety net. After that, we revisit three cases we told you we'd be keeping an eye on.Ā  First, we look at the aftermath ofĀ Jane Doe v. Wright, which we first discussed in Episodes 117 and 133.Ā  Back then, we told you about the fate of a single young woman in state custody who was denied her right to an abortion; today, we tell you about the nationwide class action that was just certified in Garza v. Hargan. Next, we revisitĀ Kolbe v. Hogan, which we called a "landmark" case way back in Episode 47.Ā  Find out how a federal district court judge in Massachusetts just appliedĀ Kolbe in upholding the Massachusetts ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. For our third revisit, we take a look at another trademark case in light of the Slants case (Matal v. Tam) that we first discussed with Simon Tam way back in Episode 33 and reported on Tam's victory before the Supreme Court in Episode 80.Ā  The Slants's victory paved the way for disparaging and offensive trademarks, but what about garden-variety "immoral or scandalous" ones, like FUCT clothing or "Big Dick Nick" towels?Ā  Listen and find out! Finally, we endĀ with the answer to the fiendishly hard Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #71 about whether a state can discriminate against out-of-state competitors.Ā  Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook PageĀ so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!Ā  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links
  1. This is Alphr's list of the "15 Best Podcasts of 2018" -- and wow, we're in some good company!
  2. You can click here to read the White House Executive Order on "Reducing Poverty in America;" we quoted from Section 5 at the end.
  3. We first discussedĀ Jane Doe v. WrightĀ in Episodes 117 and 133.
  4. We first told you aboutĀ Kolbe v. HoganĀ in Episode 47; now, you can read the Massachusetts decision inĀ Worman v. Healey.Ā  Also, if you like briefs, you can read the petition for certiorari, the State of Maryland's opposition, and the petitioners' reply.
  5. We told you about the Slants's case back in our Episode 33 interview with Simon Tam and reported on Tam's Supreme Court win in Episode 80; today, we discuss In re Brunetti, which applies the Matal v. Tam holding to the rest of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).
  6. Finally, the link you've been waiting for: theĀ Deadspin article about "Big Dick Nick."
Support us on Patreon at: Ā patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: Ā @Openargs Facebook: Ā https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

Your honor, I object!

0:05.0

And why is that Mr. Reed?

0:07.0

Because it's devastating to my case!

0:19.0

I did you know, the murders, but as you're all so looking forward to this, I thought I'd be not guilty.

0:31.0

They say a man who represents himself as a fool for a client.

0:35.0

Well, with God as my witness, I am that fool!

0:45.0

Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film the never-ending store.

0:53.0

Welcome to Opening Arguments, the podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer.

1:00.0

This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of P.A.

1:03.0

Torres, LLC for Entertainment purposes, is not intended as legal advice and does not form an attorney-client relationship.

1:09.0

Don't take legal advice from a podcast.

1:13.0

Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 165. I'm your host, Thomas Smith.

1:24.0

That over there is your lawyer-ly host, Andrew Torres.

1:28.0

We can just breathe. We're not trying to cram in 478 different indictments and nonsense in here.

1:35.0

No, but we still have too much.

1:38.0

It's true, right? Let's keep this on a strict schedule.

1:41.0

But I mean, there were a dozen stories that I wanted to cover on last Friday's episode.

1:47.0

Until we go to daily shows that we're going to have to try and cherry pick and give you the stuff you need to get through your week.

1:57.0

All right. Well, we've got a great episode for you today.

2:00.0

As we alluded to last week, we're going to be talking about we're going to be doing some follow-ups.

2:05.0

Some of the cases that Andrew has educated us on throughout the past.

2:09.0

Oh, who knows? I don't know. Year. We'll see how far back these go.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright Ā© Tapesearch 2026.