I was stunned that Texas banned this in the first place.
I'm kind of okay with racist morons self identifying themselves so we can avoid them though.
You can see what the plates would look like here, as well as peruse a myriad of embeded links.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2015/03/confederate_flag_on_texas_license_plates_supreme_court_considers_free_speech.single.html
QuoteLost Cause
Do devotees of the Confederacy have a First Amendment right to put the rebel battle flag on their license plates?
By Mark Joseph Stern
There are few things Americans love more than free speech and automobiles. There are few things state legislatures love more than money. Given these facts, Texas' customized license plate program—whereby citizens can create license plate designs and, for a hefty fee, ask the state to produce them—sounds like a pretty great idea. On Monday, however, Texas was forced to confront a small problem with its program. A few years ago, the Sons of Confederate Veterans proposed a plate sporting the rebel battle flag. Texas refused to print it. And on Monday, it defended itself against a group of Confederate devotees convinced that they have a First Amendment right to speak through the government registration on their cars.
This case is packed with ironies—not least of which is the fact that a state that officially celebrates Confederate Heroes Day refuses to print a license plate commemorating Dixie. But when Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller approaches the bench on Monday morning, he doesn't seem particularly bemused. Nor does he seem thrown by the fact that last time he appeared before the justices, he defended Texas' right to fund housing discrimination against minorities, and he is now arguing that Texas doesn't want to offend black people. Keller intends to convince the justices that license plates are pure government speech, which, the court has held, merits no First Amendment protection because it involves no private, individualized expression. Thus, the state can approve or reject any license plate it wants.
But there's a glaring flaw in Keller's argument. By allowing individuals to put their own messages on license plates, Texas would seem to have transformed plates from a piece of metal to a public forum. And it's First Amendment law that the government can't discriminate among viewpoints in a public forum, allowing the expression of some opinions while censoring others. In other words, Texas could have refused to let individuals design their own license plates. But once it allowed customized plates, it lost the ability to censor who gets to express what messages on the back of their cars.
Predictably, Keller's argument that license plates aren't free speech at all instantly irritates Justice Anthony Kennedy, a First Amendment purist. Kennedy rephrases Keller's position into something more sinister: "When it's government speech, the government can engage in viewpoint discrimination." Justice Elena Kagan picks up on this line of argument and asks whether Texas could approve a plate that says "Vote Republican" but reject one that says "Vote Democrat." Keller thinks another clause of the Constitution might forbid that but isn't sure which one. Maybe the equal protection clause? Kennedy elbows in again: Does the government really get to engage in viewpoint discrimination when it has helped to create a new public forum, like license plates?
Keller tries to dart away from the interrogation, which is wise. (Generally, when a justice asks the same question twice, it means he didn't like your answer the first time.) License plates, Keller insists, are just government speech; they aren't a traditional public forum, like parks, where individuals get to express their views.
"Why aren't they traditional?" Kennedy demands. "People don't go to parks any more. They drive." Kennedy's park slander raises a one of his very Kennedy-esque points (which, on this perpetually divided court, are often the only points that matter.) In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the swing justice famously wrote that Americans "must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas." With its customized license plate program, Texas clearly created a new forum for expression. Now it wants to retain the power to censor that expression.
Which is totally fine by Justice Antonin Scalia, Monday's least valuable player (or technically the second least valuable, after the always-silent Justice Clarence Thomas.) Throughout the morning, Scalia looks simultaneously stultified and peeved, interrupting Keller only to give him a verbal pat on the head. Can Texas, he asks, refuse to print a vanity plate that reads "HOTSTUFF"? Keller says yes. Then Texas controls the message on all of its plates, Scalia says. Case closed.
But aside from revealing himself to be a closet Donna Summer fan, Scalia doesn't add much to Monday's argument. Surprisingly, it's Justice Stephen Breyer who emerges as the day's MVP, forgoing his usual discursive maundering to zero in on one key question. License plates, Breyer explains, are obviously neither pure government speech nor pure private speech. What Texas must do to win, then, is explain why it has an interest in keeping certain messages off its plates, and what standard it uses to decide which messages get nixed. When Keller hedges and Scalia jumps in to help him, Breyer throws his hands up in frustration. Kennedy intervenes to reiterate Breyer's question, which a nettled Breyer then repeats. It's an impressively focused performance from a justice who once asked a question about a pet oyster.
What Breyer wants to get at—and what Keller wants to avoid—is the standard Texas uses to judge customized license plates, which is, apparently, their "offensiveness." The court has held over and over again that mere offensiveness can't justify censorship. Breyer wants Keller to explain exactly how Texas gauges offensiveness when reviewing proposed plates. But before Breyer can get a firm answer, Keller sits down—and the day takes a turn for the weird as Roger James George Jr. approaches the bench to argue for the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
George is sluggish, bumbling, and repetitive, his Southern drawl slowing the clip of the morning to a crawl. On several occasions, he sounds like he's giving his order to an especially dim-witted Arby's cashier. George wants to bind Texas' hands entirely, withdrawing the state's ability to censor even the most odious license plates. Cue the parade of horribles. What about a swastika, says Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Absolutely—print the plate. What about the word jihad? Sure—print it. (George initially thinks Ginsburg says "vegan," which may be just as offensive as "jihad" in Texas.)
How about "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," Ginsburg asks, prompting a knowing laugh from the courtroom. No question, George says. Scalia grouses: What you're really arguing for, he notes, is an abolition of customized plates. A program that allows swastika plates, after all, is a program that won't exist for much longer.
George sticks to his guns, clinging to his single jejune argument to the point of monotony. So the justices start to do his job for him, imagining what a First Amendment compromise might look like here. Justice Sonia Sotomayor brings up Wooley v. Maynard, in which the court held that New Hampshire can't make Jehovah's Witnesses put "Live Free or Die" on their license plates. If the government can't force citizens to convey a certain message on a plate, Sotomayor wonders, why can citizens force the government convey a certain message? Shouldn't Wooley, at the very least, protect the government from promoting messages it utterly despises?
But George stands his ground, holding that Texas must approve even a license plate featuring a vile racial slur. If the state is concerned, he suggests, it can add a message on the plate explaining that it doesn't endorse the message. Sotomayor asks where that disclaimer could possibly fit. Justice Samuel Alito asks bluntly whether this program is "all about money." George says yes. There's a moment of stunned silence as Alito leans back and smiles. Then the courtroom bursts into laughter. George does not appear to get the joke.
At the end of the hour, every justice except Scalia and Thomas seemed eager to find a middle ground between Keller and George's dueling hard lines. The offensiveness standard is disturbingly vague, granting the government too much power to silence any message it doesn't like. But without some standard, states will be powerless to keep the most horrifying epithets off their official plates. Plainly, seven members of the court aren't convinced that Texas should be able to bar Confederate flag license plates while allowing nearly 500 others designs, including some that oppose abortion and encourage war. The trick, apparently, will be crafting a rule that keeps the swastika out but lets in the stars and bars. Please the Confederates, disappoint the neo-Nazis: When it comes to the First Amendment, you can't win them all.
No thanks, Slate.
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2015, 03:06:10 AM
No thanks, Slate.
Garbon that nickname will never stick, makes Timmay out to be far more macho than he is.
It makes me think of Fred Flintstones' Boss.
Yes there is a 1st Amendment right to put stuff on your car. I am not sure the state is required to print it though. But I guess the Supreme Court will soon let us know.
Anyway we have always delt with this Confederate problem by using the actual Confederate Flag, which is just a historical artifact, and not the Battle Flag, which is too closely identified with lynchings and segregation. Pity Texas and the SCV crowd couldn't compromise and resolve it that way.
I wish there wasn't a 1st Amendment right to put your school decal in the back window. Those things are impossible to scrape off.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2015, 08:36:56 AM
I wish there wasn't a 1st Amendment right to put your school decal in the back window. Those things are impossible to scrape off.
Why were you out scrapping school decals off people's cars?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2015, 08:36:56 AM
I wish there wasn't a 1st Amendment right to put your school decal in the back window. Those things are impossible to scrape off.
Yep :(
I know nothing about this case and didn't read the article. But thanks to my prestigious law school education, I can inform you that there is a 1st Amendment right to *not* display 'LIVE FREE OR DIE' on your license plate if you're a Jehovah's Witness in New Hampshire. As cool, gnarly, and authentically American a slogan as it may be, not letting the JWs cover it up when it doesn't impede the purpose of the license plate is too closed to forced speech. :(
Come to think of it, JWs in New Hampshire are responsible for a disproportionate amount of 1st Amendment case law. They gave us the "fighting words" doctrine when one of their flock got into with the city marshal and called him out for being a "God damned racketeer" and a "damned fascist." That's not protected speech. :(
JWs swear? :blink:
Then I bet you have a 1st Amendment right to get a confederate flag license plate and then cover up the flag part.
Shouldnt people like this be tried for supporting sedition?
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 11:10:49 AM
Shouldnt people like this be tried for supporting sedition?
No.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 24, 2015, 10:31:18 AM
I know nothing about this case and didn't read the article. But thanks to my prestigious law school education, I can inform you that there is a 1st Amendment right to *not* display 'LIVE FREE OR DIE' on your license plate if you're a Jehovah's Witness in New Hampshire. As cool, gnarly, and authentically American a slogan as it may be, not letting the JWs cover it up when it doesn't impede the purpose of the license plate is too closed to forced speech. :(
Come to think of it, JWs in New Hampshire are responsible for a disproportionate amount of 1st Amendment case law. They gave us the "fighting words" doctrine when one of their flock got into with the city marshal and called him out for being a "God damned racketeer" and a "damned fascist." That's not protected speech. :(
The heroes of the first amendment, in order: JWs, Nazis, and Santeria worshippers.
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2015, 08:35:33 AM
Yes there is a 1st Amendment right to put stuff on your car. I am not sure the state is required to print it though.
Yeah, as long as you aren't covering up any necessary information (such as the license plate number or the expiration date) you should be able to put a sticker or similar device on your license and have that fall under your 1st Amendment protections. But requiring the state to provide you with a license already printed with your chosen symbols, slogans, or logos? No. It would be like trying to assert that freedom of the press requires the government to print up pamphlets touting your political beliefs.
The only way I see Texas losing would be if some slick lawyer gets the courts to buy some bogus equal protection argument.
There are two courses of action that make sense:
1. Allow the Confederate flag.
2. Don't allow the Confederate flag but also stop allowing all the Jeebus people to put crosses and stuff like that on their plates. You cannot have it both ways or else the state is discriminating in favor of beliefs it likes vs. ones it doesn't like.
I bet Cal has that KY license plate with the dog on it.
Quote from: derspiess on March 24, 2015, 12:53:44 PM
I bet Cal has that KY license plate with the dog on it.
Nope, my rear plate is 'vanilla' and not a vanity plate.
My front plate however is a Jim Beam Black plate. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 12:48:15 PM
There are two courses of action that make sense:
1. Allow the Confederate flag.
2. Don't allow the Confederate flag but also stop allowing all the Jeebus people to put crosses and stuff like that on their plates. You cannot have it both ways or else the state is discriminating in favor of beliefs it likes vs. ones it doesn't like.
Wait so if we decide to print plates with the state flower on it we have to print ISIS propaganda? I mean if people want to put ISIS propaganda on their cars go right ahead but I do not see why we have to print it for them. But maybe you are saying if we print license plates for people if we allow them to personalize, we are constitutionally required to allow them to personalize it however they want.
Not sure I buy that one. But again the Supremes will decide this one.
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2015, 12:55:31 PM
Wait so if we decide to print plates with the state flower on it we have to print ISIS propaganda? I mean if people want to put ISIS propaganda on their cars go right ahead but I do not see why we have to print it for them. But maybe you are saying if we print license plates for people if we allow them to personalize, we are constitutionally required to allow them to personalize it however they want.
Not sure I buy that one. But again the Supremes will decide this one.
What I'm really hoping for is the second option so I don't have to see any more lame special interest plates. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 12:56:25 PM
What I'm really hoping for is the second option so I don't have to see any more lame special interest plates. :)
Well in Texas we like when the government sells things because it means less taxes or something so I will have to look forward to the ISIS propaganda :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 12:55:29 PM
Nope, my rear plate is 'vanilla' and not a vanity plate.
:(
QuoteMy front plate however is a Jim Beam Black plate. :cool:
Brave man.
Ohio has some bizarre custom plate choices. You can get a Superman logo, one apparently for beekeepers, or one with a mastodon that says "MASTODON" underneath the picture of the mastodon. Plus they have not just one, but two pro-life ones plus this one sure to be a Languish fave:
(https://www.oplates.com/Controls/image.plate?plateText=-SAMPLE-&fontName=DLPcw&fontSize=36&plateImagePath=~/Images/Plates/602_one_nation.gif&x=30&y=35&color=DarkBlue&height=100px&width=200px&plateImageFormat=Gif)
Maybe I should petition Kentucky to allow an Iron Maiden custom plate with Eddie on it.
"Upping the irons is my religion, Mr. Governor..."
My essay on current events:
Our teacher Tim posted some bullshit current events news story about license plates in Texas and whether people can have Confederate flags on them. Other states allow drivers to put unsympathetic hateful things on their license plates. For instance, in Connecticut, you can get a plate that says "Preserve The Sound" with a lighthouse on it. They are talking about the Long Island Sound when they say "The Sound."
Well, you may not know this, but the LI Sound is a lame, shitty body of water. There's no waves but it's salt water anyways. You go swimming in it, you get stung by hundreds of little red jellyfish. There are a few islands in it, and they are mostly federal land full of virulent deer ticks infected with Lyme disease; this was mentioned in the movie Silence of the Lambs. In conclusion, I think "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" as my grandpa always said.
The end.
CM, age 11.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2015, 12:55:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 24, 2015, 12:48:15 PM
There are two courses of action that make sense:
1. Allow the Confederate flag.
2. Don't allow the Confederate flag but also stop allowing all the Jeebus people to put crosses and stuff like that on their plates. You cannot have it both ways or else the state is discriminating in favor of beliefs it likes vs. ones it doesn't like.
Wait so if we decide to print plates with the state flower on it we have to print ISIS propaganda? I mean if people want to put ISIS propaganda on their cars go right ahead but I do not see why we have to print it for them. But maybe you are saying if we print license plates for people if we allow them to personalize, we are constitutionally required to allow them to personalize it however they want.
Not sure I buy that one. But again the Supremes will decide this one.
I think once you allow people to personalize their plates you provide them, you certianly open it up to first amendment issues. You can't pick and choose what they will allow.
As one justice pointed out, if you allow the state to say no to rebel flags, do you have to allow the state to say no to "Go Democrats" while allowing them to say yes to "Go Republicans"?
Either the answer is that they can make that distinction, in which case there is a real problem of the state endorsing some viewpoints in favor of others, and what standard does the state use to do so, or you don't allow either, or any.
Alternatively, you allow everything, and that includes grossly offensive stuff like "Let's Kill The Jews" or something equally clearly reprehensible, which means the program immediately goes away.
That's clearly false.
QuoteThe group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 1870s by Charles Taze Russell with the formation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, with significant organizational and doctrinal changes under the leadership of Joseph Franklin Rutherford.[10][11] The name Jehovah's witnesses[12] was adopted in 1931 to distinguish themselves from other Bible Student groups and symbolize a break with the legacy of Russell's traditions.
Clearly?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2015, 03:44:06 PM
Clearly?
As long as you've been here, I shouldn't have to spell out a "Grumbler is really, really old" joke to you...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 24, 2015, 03:46:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2015, 03:44:06 PM
Clearly?
As long as you've been here, I shouldn't have to spell out a "Grumbler is really, really old" joke to you...
I thought the joke was he was raised a JW because he was there to witness J. :Embarrass:
True, but already an adult at the time. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 24, 2015, 03:50:18 PM
True, but already an adult at the time. ;)
Jehovah (at the time of creation), not Jesus.
Indeed. :D
One thing grumbler will say for him: Jesus was cool.
I gotta say I agree with Berkut. If a private business cannot refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, then so much more a state should not be able to refuse to produce license plates with something it disagrees with printed on it. If they don't want people to print stuff the government does not like on their plates, then they should not allow people to print anything.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 24, 2015, 01:06:40 PM
My essay on current events:
Our teacher Tim posted some bullshit current events news story about license plates in Texas and whether people can have Confederate flags on them. Other states allow drivers to put unsympathetic hateful things on their license plates. For instance, in Connecticut, you can get a plate that says "Preserve The Sound" with a lighthouse on it. They are talking about the Long Island Sound when they say "The Sound."
Well, you may not know this, but the LI Sound is a lame, shitty body of water. There's no waves but it's salt water anyways. You go swimming in it, you get stung by hundreds of little red jellyfish. There are a few islands in it, and they are mostly federal land full of virulent deer ticks infected with Lyme disease; this was mentioned in the movie Silence of the Lambs. In conclusion, I think "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" as my grandpa always said.
The end.
CM, age 11.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 04:04:57 PM
I gotta say I agree with Berkut. If a private business cannot refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, then so much more a state should not be able to refuse to produce license plates with something it disagrees with printed on it. If they don't want people to print stuff the government does not like on their plates, then they should not allow people to print anything.
Well to be fair the government is baking any gay wedding cakes either.
Do cakes have a sexual orientation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2015, 04:29:58 PM
Do cakes have a sexual orientation.
I don't really know what Marty was talking about.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2015, 04:29:58 PM
Do cakes have a sexual orientation.
These days everything does.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2015, 04:31:53 PM
I don't really know what Marty was talking about.
Some baker refused to bake a cake for two dykes IIRC.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2015, 04:31:53 PM
I don't really know what Marty was talking about.
Some baker refused to bake a cake for two dykes IIRC.
Yup and they sued her to the tune of $150,000
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 04:46:16 PM
Yup and they sued her to the tune of $150,000
Baker was a chick? They should have just chick-raped her.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 24, 2015, 03:42:51 PM
That's clearly false.
QuoteThe group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 1870s by Charles Taze Russell with the formation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, with significant organizational and doctrinal changes under the leadership of Joseph Franklin Rutherford.[10][11] The name Jehovah's witnesses[12] was adopted in 1931 to distinguish themselves from other Bible Student groups and symbolize a break with the legacy of Russell's traditions.
I'm not arguing the issue one way or another (I mean, I could point out the obvious, but what would be the fun of that? :lol:)
I'm just preserving such a spectacularly stupid statement so Raz can't delete it and claim he never wrote it.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on March 24, 2015, 10:31:18 AM
I know nothing about this case and didn't read the article. But thanks to my prestigious law school education, I can inform you that there is a 1st Amendment right to *not* display 'LIVE FREE OR DIE' on your license plate if you're a Jehovah's Witness in New Hampshire. As cool, gnarly, and authentically American a slogan as it may be, not letting the JWs cover it up when it doesn't impede the purpose of the license plate is too closed to forced speech. :(
That case is mentioned in the article, read it! :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2015, 04:50:50 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 24, 2015, 03:42:51 PM
That's clearly false.
QuoteThe group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 1870s by Charles Taze Russell with the formation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, with significant organizational and doctrinal changes under the leadership of Joseph Franklin Rutherford.[10][11] The name Jehovah's witnesses[12] was adopted in 1931 to distinguish themselves from other Bible Student groups and symbolize a break with the legacy of Russell's traditions.
I'm not arguing the issue one way or another (I mean, I could point out the obvious, but what would be the fun of that? :lol: )
I'm just preserving such a spectacularly stupid statement so Raz can't delete it and claim he never wrote it.
Why would I delete it? You've granted my the right to the last word. I imagine you thought this some sort of punishment, but I have a lot of fun with it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 24, 2015, 05:09:46 PM
Molten genderfluid
Are you talking about your latest dump again? :huh:
Maybe
Me and honey kitten were defecating on each other's chest, while dreaming of a glorious new confederacy filled with glorious white children shitting on each other. Squee! I exclaimed in delight as I smeared a turd of the south on her glorious milky breasts.....
TMI
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 24, 2015, 05:27:08 PM
Me and honey kitten were defecating on each other's chest, while dreaming of a glorious new confederacy filled with glorious white children shitting on each other. Squee! I exclaimed in delight as I smeared a turd of the south on her glorious milky breasts.....
You and Lettow should talk! :w00t:
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 04:46:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 24, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2015, 04:31:53 PM
I don't really know what Marty was talking about.
Some baker refused to bake a cake for two dykes IIRC.
Yup and they sued her to the tune of $150,000
Well I guess the government shouldn't get into the gay cake business then.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 04:04:57 PM
If they don't want people to print stuff the government does not like on their plates, then they should not allow people to print anything.
Well, I think they can probably come up with some sort of objective criteria that balances state interests with 1st Amendment rights, but they need to have such a criteria in place, and be able to defend it, rather than "Print what you want, but we might say no. Or yes. Hard to say, really..."
But otherwise they are left with untenable choices - they cannot say "Print anything!" because that will certainly result in someone asking that something be printed that will result in the entire program being shut down.
And they cannot refuse to print things in an arbitrary manner, because that opens them up to hypotheticals like "What if someone says 'Go Republicans' is ok and "Go Democrats' is not?"
How about just going with "print nothing"?
I mean, people can clutter the back of their car with all sorts of fucking bumper stickers saying they love the Confederacy, Baby on Board, Honk If You're Horny, etc. Why must they have a special little license plate too? Back in the day you couldn't do that shit to your license plate and the world didn't end. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2015, 06:30:44 PM
Well I guess the government shouldn't get into the gay cake business then.
I think California has a gay cake license plate.
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2015, 03:42:40 PM
How about just going with "print nothing"?
I mean, people can clutter the back of their car with all sorts of fucking bumper stickers saying they love the Confederacy, Baby on Board, Honk If You're Horny, etc. Why must they have a special little license plate too? Back in the day you couldn't do that shit to your license plate and the world didn't end. :hmm:
Money
Quote from: derspiess on March 25, 2015, 03:43:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2015, 06:30:44 PM
Well I guess the government shouldn't get into the gay cake business then.
I think California has a gay cake license plate.
As well as a "Free Edward Snowden" plate. :)
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 03:45:43 PM
Money
Yeah I already explained this. Texas likes for its public institutions to be self funding if possible.
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2015, 03:54:50 PM
As well as a "Free Edward Snowden" plate. :)
When did we catch Snowden? I bet those plates would be popular in Victoria.
Speaking of self funding through fees, John Oliver had a segment on traffic violation fines being farmed out to private fee collectors who charged the debtor something like $35 per month for the service of collecting the outstanding fines.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 24, 2015, 04:29:58 PM
Do cakes have a sexual orientation.
In Spanish cakes are guys, dunno if they are straight or gay though.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 03:59:23 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2015, 03:45:43 PM
Money
Yeah I already explained this. Texas likes for its public institutions to be self funding if possible.
Missouri is the same way... This resulted in some problems recently.
A myriad of embedded links? Well I'm in.
It's more of a plethora.
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2015, 08:35:33 AM
Yes there is a 1st Amendment right to put stuff on your car. I am not sure the state is required to print it though. But I guess the Supreme Court will soon let us know.
Anyway we have always delt with this Confederate problem by using the actual Confederate Flag, which is just a historical artifact, and not the Battle Flag, which is too closely identified with lynchings and segregation. Pity Texas and the SCV crowd couldn't compromise and resolve it that way.
The Supreme Court says the state is not required to print it, and Thomas is the shocking 5th vote in favor! :o
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/supreme-court-says-texas-can-reject-confederate-flag-license-plates.html?_r=0
QuoteWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Texas did not violate the First Amendment when it refused to allow specialty license plates bearing the Confederate battle flag. Such plates, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority, are the government's speech and are thus immune from First Amendment attacks.
The vote was 5 to 4. The court's other three liberal members joined Justice Breyer's majority opinion, as did Justice Clarence Thomas.
"As a general matter," Justice Breyer wrote, "when the government speaks it is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy or to take a position." Were this not so, he said, the government would be powerless to encourage vaccinations or promote recycling.
People use specialty license plates to suggest that the government endorses the messages they bear, he wrote. Otherwise, he said, people "could simply display the message in question in larger letters on a bumper sticker right next to the plate."
In dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the majority opinion "establishes a precedent that threatens private speech that the government finds displeasing."
Texas has hundreds of specialty plates. Many are for college alumni, sports fans, businesses and service organizations. Others send messages like "Choose Life," "God Bless Texas" and "Fight Terrorism." The license plates are, Justice Alito wrote, "little mobile billboards on which motorists can display their own messages."
He mocked the notion that, say, plates saying "Rather Be Golfing" or celebrating the University of Oklahoma conveyed a government message. The first, he said, cannot represent state policy. The second, in Texas at least, bordered on treason during college football season, he wrote.
Justice Breyer relied heavily on the court's 2009 decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, which said that a city in Utah did not have to make room in a public park for a monument celebrating the tenets of minor religion even though the park included a donated Ten Commandments monument. The monuments the city chose to accept, the court said, were the government's speech. And when the government speaks, the court added, it is free to say what it likes.
The Confederate Flag and Free Speech
The court decided in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans that Texas had not discriminated against the view of the group when refusing to allow its license plate bearing the Confederate flag.
Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in the Summum decision, said Justice Breyer "badly misunderstands" it. Monuments are different, Justice Alito said, as a matter of history, convention and "spatial limitations."
Nine states have let drivers choose specialty license plates featuring the Confederate battle flag and honoring the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which says it seeks to celebrate Southern heritage. But Texas refused to allow the group's plates, saying the flag was offensive.
When Texas turned down the one featuring the Confederate flag, the board of the Motor Vehicles Department said "A significant portion of the public," the board said, "associates the Confederate flag with organizations advocating expressions of hate directed toward people or groups that is demeaning to those people or groups."
The flag appears on license plates in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. The Supreme Court's decision on Thursday, Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, No. 14-144, now allows them to ban the plates.
The Supreme Court last considered what the First Amendment had to say about license plates was in 1977, when it ruled in Wooley v. Maynard that New Hampshire could not require people to display plates bearing the state's motto, "Live Free or Die."
Justice Breyer said Thursday's decision was its mirror image. Texas cannot force the heritage group to convey its message, he wrote, and the group "cannot force Texas to include a Confederate battle flag on its specialty license plates."
Holy shit I cannot believe it was that close. Thank God for Clarence Thomas.
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 06:50:34 PMThank God for Clarence Thomas.
You don't hear that every day. :P