New Zealand Human Rights Commission: Te Kähui Tika Tangata More recently, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the offensive nature of hate speech in cases like Matal v Tam (2017), but they have been reluctant to impose broad restrictions on it:228 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. Matal v Tam concerned a dance-rock band’s application for federal trademark registration of the band’s name, “The Slants.” “Slants” is a derogatory term for persons of Asian descent, and members of the band are AsianAmericans. But the band members believed that by taking that slur as the name of their group, they would Matal v Tam 582 US __ (2017) at 25. At 1. 230 At 38. 228 229 40 help to “reclaim” the term and drain its denigrating force.229 The Supreme Court confirmed by a unanimous decision that prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may ‘disparage’ persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy stated, “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. 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.”230