Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech."[1] The authors were still free to write, but were denied the financial benefits of their labors. This appears to completely dispense with the McGinley reasoning.
In Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. v. New York States Liquor Authority,[2] analyzed a similar issue. In that case, the appellant sought to use a trademark of a frog "giving the finger" to any and all passerby on bottles of liquor. The Second Circuit held that since trademarks are commercial speech, prohibition on use of so-called "offensive" trademarks did not advance the stated governmental purpose of protecting children from vulgarity or promoting temperance, nor was it narrowly tailored to serve that purpose.
Finally, there can be no clearer authority for the death of Section 2(A) than Lawrence v. Texas.[3] "The fact a State's governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice."[4] "Morality" is no longer a valid reason to confer or deny a governmental benefit–instead the government must articulate a reason why registration of "fuckingmachines" might be harmful, and then apply that reason to the particular circumstances at hand, in a narrow manner. The government has done none of this in this case, nor in any other 2(A) denial.
REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF
Should the examiner, after reviewing the facts and legal arguments set forth above, still determine that "fuckingmachines" is unsuitable for the Principal Register, the Applicant requests that the Examiner grant the alternative relief of listing this Mark on the Supplemental Register as
20
