Confederate Flag License Plate in Texas -- Expression vs. Hate Speech

[leibowde84]

I do not know the background on this, I am surprised this is going to the SCOTUS, that strikes me odd. Is that true?

If this has to do with car Plates on autos, this is a State decision and not Federal nor in my opinion a Supreme Court question regarding constitution et all but only State court(s) since it is each State that determines the state license and plate release.

I think this is the same "issue" that came up (briefly) on a "right-wing" radio show discussed but sort of dismissed as pretty much a non-starter. The gist was, no the State cannot be FORCED to provide car plates (in this case in Texas per the show) with flags on it of a non-US nation such as the Confederacy. Now if the STATE ITSELF uses the old Confederate Flag in their STATE flag then the state flag is fine, but no one has a "constitutional right if free speech" to force a state to have a Confederate Flag on it, a car plate is not a cpnstitutional right nor a free speech question. If citizens don't want these things, they can talk to their State reps and stop them, actually many of these custom plates were looking for trouble and "probably never should have been allowed in the first place, they started off as money making schemes by high tax states with environmental plates and then got out of cuntrol" as the host said.

Vets and purple heart medal soldiers should have a special veteran plates and in my opinion should be free for life. If some states want to allow illegal aliens to drive cars, which is a state decision, in my opinion these plates should be flagged with an "A" for alien. And child molesters should have their plates flagged with "X".

In California, I have a "personal plate" with the name of a Hindu God. But - I do not think I have a "constitutional right" to have this plate in the name "of free speech ". The plate does not belong to me, it belongs to the State of California and it is a privilege not a right. Maybe this should not have been started in the first place, but tax and spenders in government are always wanting to grab more money or sell something - the next thing you know they may REQUIRE a "personal plate".

I didn't like either choice since I do not like the idea of "hate speech" but since this plate is NOT a free speech issue I voted the second, not because it is "hate speech" but because it isn't a constitutional question nor a free speech question.

Constitutional issues can always be heard by Federal Courts. In this case, the SCOTUS is under the

From a European perspective, if the USA had the right to succeed from the British Empire, then the CSA had the right to succeed from the USA. If you take a CSA flag as a declaration of a belief in states' rights, that seems fair enough to me.

We had a row in Britain when you were only allowed the Union Flag or the EU one. Now you can have English, Scots, or Welsh flags. In Northern Ireland, you can only use the EU flag, to prevent unseemly arguments (or someone torching your car...)

The issue isn't with secession in this instance. The symbol reminds many African Americans of Slavery, which was a central cause of the Civil War (although there were others). To them, I think, it seems like people are showing pride in their cultural history which included owning slaves.

 

[BSM1]

I do not know the background on this, I am surprised this is going to the SCOTUS, that strikes me odd. Is that true?

If this has to do with car Plates on autos, this is a State decision and not Federal nor in my opinion a Supreme Court question regarding constitution et all but only State court(s) since it is each State that determines the state license and plate release.

I think this is the same "issue" that came up (briefly) on a "right-wing" radio show discussed but sort of dismissed as pretty much a non-starter. The gist was, no the State cannot be FORCED to provide car plates (in this case in Texas per the show) with flags on it of a non-US nation such as the Confederacy. Now if the STATE ITSELF uses the old Confederate Flag in their STATE flag then the state flag is fine, but no one has a "constitutional right of free speech" to force a state to have a Confederate Flag on it, a car plate is not a constitutional right nor a free speech question. If citizens don't want these things, they can talk to their State reps and stop them, actually many of these custom plates were looking for trouble and "probably never should have been allowed in the first place, they started off as money making schemes by high tax states with environmental plates and then got out of control" as the host said.

Vets and purple heart medal soldiers should have a special veteran plates and in my opinion should be free for life. If some states want to allow illegal aliens to drive cars, which is a state decision, in my opinion these plates should be flagged with an "A" for alien. And child molesters should have their plates flagged with "X".

In California, I have a "personal plate" with the name of a Hindu God. But - I do not think I have a "constitutional right" to have this plate in the name "of free speech ". The plate does not belong to me, it belongs to the State of California and it is a privilege not a right. Maybe this should not have been started in the first place, but tax and spenders in government are always wanting to grab more money or sell something - the next thing you know they may REQUIRE a "personal plate".

I didn't like either choice since I do not like the idea of "hate speech" but since this plate is NOT a free speech issue I voted the second, not because it is "hate speech" but because it isn't a constitutional question nor a free speech question.

When the state okay's your particular plate work and you pay the fee for said plate then it becomes your property as long as you pay the required annual fees.

 

[Twilight Hue]

My God, there actually is a plate like that in Idaho??? The Nazi flag on a STATE OWNED PLATE? OR are you kidding (photoshop)?

No, the plate belongs to the State not personal property. A State can even say there will not be any plate at all if that is what the people of that State convince their STATE (not Congressional) representatives to do.

I don't like the idea of foreign flags be they Nazi, Confederate or ... for that matter ISIS flag on a car plate.

That's it - I say no more "theme or personal" plates at all. I will turn in my personal plate is we get rid of this nonsense. If we can have "personal plates" then why not let Advertizers SELL (e.g. pay the fee for the plate) of those who agree to advertise their product on the "personal plate" such as a Trojan Condom or Viagra logo, or perhaps Marlboro Cigarettes? I mean why not?

That's why they are called vanity plates. It's just another way of getting extra cash into the state coffers. Don't give them any ideas about corporate plates albeit some already are out there. Of course if a corporation is willing to pay fees and such I could live with an addy on them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even though I don't like it, it still falls under the protection of the 1st Amendment.

If the First Amendment applied to license plates, then wouldn't a requested vanity plate be protected speech... even if it was a duplicate of an existing plate?

What about having a second plate on a vehicle? What if the speech I want to convey needs more than 8 characters?

 

[metis]

If the First Amendment applied to license plates, then wouldn't a requested vanity plate be protected speech... even if it was a duplicate of an existing plate?

What about having a second plate on a vehicle? What if the speech I want to convey needs more than 8 characters?

Generally speaking, yes, the 1st Amendment still applies unless harm can be established. However, there's a catch that might prevent it, namely that driving is considered a privilege, not a right.

As far as the number of characters, there can be reasonable limitations put on free speech, although those limitations can obviously be legally challenged. If the state says only X amount of characters are allowed, and there's reasoning behind it, a court challenge may not work.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Generally speaking, yes, the 1st Amendment still applies unless harm can be established. However, there's a catch that might prevent it, namely that driving is considered a privilege, not a right.

I think the more compelling argument is that a license plate is based on equitable treatment.

The plate is owned by the state, so even if the speech isn't entirely the state's (since personalized plates do exist), the state is at the very least a partner in the speech and gets a say.

OTOH, even if personalized and graphic plates are nothing more than a privilege, the state still has an obligation to administer privileges equitably. If they're letting anyone and everyone have their graphics on license plates (including businesses? Did I read that right?), then it may very well be discriminatory to say "no" to just one organization.

As far as the number of characters, there can be reasonable limitations put on free speech, although those limitations can obviously be legally challenged. If the state says only X amount of characters are allowed, and there's reasoning behind it, a court challenge may not work.

If I had 2 plates on my car, both registered to my vehicle, I would be twice as identifiable. Government interests are satisfied.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Unless given reason to think otherwise, I tend to look at it as a pride in being Southerner thing. For example:

Shoot, that could be me since my dad's side of the family is from Louisiana.

 

[gsa]

If the state wants to ban vanity plates, they can do that. But when they allow people to use vanity plates to express themselves, they should be subject to pretty exacting standards if they want to censor that expression.

So I think it violates the First Amendment.

 

[dust1n]

From a European perspective, if the USA had the right to succeed from the British Empire, then the CSA had the right to succeed from the USA. If you take a CSA flag as a declaration of a belief in states' rights, that seems fair enough to me.

We had a row in Britain when you were only allowed the Union Flag or the EU one. Now you can have English, Scots, or Welsh flags. In Northern Ireland, you can only use the EU flag, to prevent unseemly arguments (or someone torching your car...)

USA didn't have a right to succeed from the British Empire. They just did and won. Unfortunately the CSA can't say the same.

 

[columbus]

I think every license plate from a given state should look the same.
If Indiana has dark blue with yellow characters and Ohio has red with white and Illinois has black with red, etc, etc, the plates will better serve the purpose of identifying the vehicle.
That is the point to having plates.
Maybe stick a little logo on the exact same spot to boost your school or cause or something. But not completely different plates from the same state. That's stupid.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

Unless given reason to think otherwise, I tend to look at it as a pride in being Southerner thing. For example:

Shoot, that could be me since my dad's side of the family is from Louisiana.

I guess I would have to agree. While, I don't think it is only a "southern pride" thing, I would find it hard to censor things like this. Again, no one has any protection against taking offense, but slavery was a very very dark time for this country. I'm actually pretty torn on this issue.

 

[Nietzsche]

I guess I would have to agree. While, I don't think it is only a "southern pride" thing, I would find it hard to censor things like this. Again, no one has any protection against taking offense, but slavery was a very very dark time for this country. I'm actually pretty torn on this issue.

For me, it depends entirely on what flag they use.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I guess I would have to agree. While, I don't think it is only a "southern pride" thing, I would find it hard to censor things like this. Again, no one has any protection against taking offense, but slavery was a very very dark time for this country. I'm actually pretty torn on this issue.

The problem is with people equating the Confederacy with slavery as if that's all it was about. People need to stop that.

 

[leibowde84]

The problem is with people equating the Confederacy with slavery as if that's all it was about. People need to stop tha

The problem is with people equating the Confederacy with slavery as if that's all it was about. People need to stop that.

Would you deny that it was a major part of it? Because I think that is all that is reasonably necessary for African Americans to equate the symbol in that way ... imho. But only black people really know what they interpret it as.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Would you deny that it was a major part of it? Because I think that is all that is reasonably necessary for African Americans to equate the symbol in that way ... imho. But only black people really know what they interpret it as.

Slavery was a part of the economy back then, but wasn't the end all and be all of Southern life and culture. The Civil War was not about slavery, either. Need I remind you that the British and many other European people also practiced chattel slavery but we don't make a fuss about the Union Jack being flown!

You know, black people don't have a hive mind. I posted a picture of a black man who views the Flag as a symbol of his Southern heritage and he had to fight with his school over the right to display it in his dorm. I'm half black (and my black ancestry is from the Deep South) and I don't see the Flag as negative, much as I don't see the State Flag of California as a negative flag and it's a secessionist flag, too (I'm a native Californian).

 

[leibowde84]

Slavery was a part of the economy back then, but wasn't the end all and be all of Southern life and culture. The Civil War was not about slavery, either.

You know, black people don't have a hive mind. I posted a picture of a black man who views the Flag as a symbol of his Southern heritage and he had to fight with his school over the right to display it in his dorm. I'm half black (and my black ancestry is from the Deep South) and I don't see the Flag as negative, much as I don't see the State Flag of California as a negative flag and it's a secessionist flag, too (I'm a native Californian).

That's all well and good, but if you look at history, slavery was a major contributing factor in the civil war and that Is what the flag symbolizes to many people. While that might be unfair, it is a fact.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's all well and good, but if you look at history, slavery was a major contributing factor in the civil war and that Is what the flag symbolizes to many people. While that might be unfair, it is a fact.

Maybe if they taught history better, people would be more educated on this topic and stop being stupid about it. Because if you're going to get uppity about the Confederate Flag, you better hate the US flag, the Union Jack and many more besides. I can't stand people's hypocrisy.

 

[leibowde84]

Maybe if they taught history better, people would be more educated on this topic and stop being stupid about it. Because if you're going to get uppity about the Confederate Flag, you better hate the US flag, the Union Jack and many more besides. I can't stand people's hypocrisy.

And I can't stand claims like that without the least bit of a substantive argument.

Explain why the civil war was not a large contributor to the Civil War? Not the only one, as I've said, but a CONTRIBUTOR.

 

[leibowde84]

Maybe if they taught history better, people would be more educated on this topic and stop being stupid about it. Because if you're going to get uppity about the Confederate Flag, you better hate the US flag, the Union Jack and many more besides. I can't stand people's hypocrisy.

You don't think the threat of the Souths Economy collapsing had anything to do with it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You don't think the threat of the Souths Economy collapsing had anything to do with it?

Probably. The problem is that there's competing narratives over the Civil War and academics are of different opinions. I have to read more about it.