Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me! "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

This information is taken directly from the court opinion. It is not taken out of context nor is it altered.

From Cardtoons v. Major League Baseball Players Assn, 95 F.3d 959 (10. th. Cir. 1996) Cardtoons' parody trading cards receive full protection under the First Amendment. The cards provide social commentary on public figures, major league baseball players, who are involved in a significant commercial enterprise, major league baseball. While not core political speech (the cards do not, for example, adopt a position on the Ken Griffey, Jr., for President campaign), this type of commentary on an important social institution constitutes protected expression. The cards are no less protected because they provide humorous rather than serious commentary. Speech that entertains, like speech that informs, is protected by the First Amendment because "[t]he line between the informing and the entertaining is too elusive for the protection of that basic right." Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948); see Zacchini, 433 U.S. at 562, 578. Moreover, Cardtoons makes use of artistic and literary devices with distinguished traditions. Parody, for example, is a humorous form of social commentary that dates to Greek antiquity, and has since made regular appearances in English literature. See L.L Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 28 (1st Cir.), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1013 (1987). In addition, cartoons and caricatures, such as those in the trading cards, have played a prominent role in public and political debate throughout our nation's history. See Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53-55 (1988). Thus, the trading cards' commentary on these public figures and the major commercial enterprise in which they work receives no less protection because the cards are amusing. MLBPA contends that Cardtoons' speech receives less protection because it fails to use a traditional medium of expression. The protections afforded by the First Amendment, however, have never been limited to newspapers and books. The Supreme Court has relied on the First Amendment to strike down ordinances that ban the distribution of pamphlets, Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451-52 (1938), the circulation of handbills, Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 416 (1943), and the display of yard signs, City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 114 S. Ct. 2038, 2044-47 (1994). Moreover, many untraditional forms of expression are also protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (flag burning); Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61 (1981) (nude dancing); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) (wearing a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft"). Thus, even if the trading cards are not a traditional medium of expression, they nonetheless contain protected speech.