the speech unprotected, nor alters the level of protection under the First Amendment.”) (citations omitted). The names artists bestow on their art can be part and parcel of the artistic message. See Rogers, 875 F.2d at 998 (“Film-makers and authors frequently rely on word-play, ambiguity, irony, and allusion in titling their works.”). The fact that Defendants use the Rosa Parks title in advertising does not automatically erase the expressive function of the title and render it mere commercial exploitation; if a song is sold, and the title is protected by the First Amendment, the title naturally will be “inextricably intertwined” with the song’s commercial promotion. See id.; see also Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 796, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Cardtoons, 95 F.3d at 970. The public has at
recognizing the preliminary issue in a first amendment challenge is whether the speech at issue is protected or unprotected holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected holding that speech about financial assistance and handling racial discrimination does not qualify as protected speech recognizing that code is speech holding that when protected speech is inextricable from unprotected speech the court will treat the entire message as protected