What next? Sons of Wehrmacht veterans requesting their LP?

[rubato]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03 ... eech-case/

"... Battle flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case
Published March 23, 2015
Associated Press
Facebook55 Twitter188 Email Print
texas supreme court license plate.jpg

March 23, 2015: This image provided by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles shows the design of a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate. (AP)

Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, from an annual celebration of Confederate Heroes Day each January to monuments on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin. Among the memorials is one that has stood for more than a century, bearing an image of the Confederate battle flag etched in marble.

But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the state can refuse to issue a license plate featuring the battle flag without violating the free-speech rights of Texans who want one. The justices hear arguments Monday in a challenge brought by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The group sued over the state's decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and Maryland.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

"In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health -- however odorous the products of a democracy may be," Hentoff, O'Rourke and others said in a brief backing the group. ... "

If you permit the stars and bars under these grounds then you will have to allow the Sons of the Waffen SS to put the double lightening bolt or the swastika on their plates &c.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

Gee whiz rube, you mean you're opposing something supported by those saintly folks at the ACLU?

[Big RR]

since when have license plates become bumper stickers? I would suggest that rather than fight the lawsuit, Texas just do away with vanity plates altogether and issue the same plate for all. It makes a lot more sense than trying to defend content restrictions on the exercise of free speech.

[Sue U]

since when have license plates become bumper stickers? I would suggest that rather than fight the lawsuit, Texas just do away with vanity plates altogether and issue the same plate for all. It makes a lot more sense than trying to defend content restrictions on the exercise of free speech.

Exactly. Once you open up a "public space" to messaging of any kind, there's little legitimate basis to restricting access based on the content of the message.

[Big RR]

Esepcially when it's the state making the decision as to what constitutes "acceptable" messages.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Texas just do away with vanity plates

And the money.

[rubato]

since when have license plates become bumper stickers? I would suggest that rather than fight the lawsuit, Texas just do away with vanity plates altogether and issue the same plate for all. It makes a lot more sense than trying to defend content restrictions on the exercise of free speech.

I agree.


Yrs,
Rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

To me the key is what rubato said earlier - the ground of free speech is not the one on which to base an argument. The individuals have the right of free speech. The State's refusal to create special license is in no way an infringement of the individual's rights. The State is not under any obligation to speak FOR the individual by producing any old license plate design that people desire. The state has a right and a duty to NOT promote thoughts and ideas on behalf of others - it isn't, as someone said, a bumper sticker.

Vanity plates really are those which have individually selected messages using alpha numeric. MYCAR1 and H8BLUE for example. And the state has the right not to allow certain messages ever to be chosen by individuals. It is far clearer that the background of plates (Veteran, BSA, I Heart NY whatever) is absolutely a question of mass production decided upon by the state without reference to ephemera such as "freedom of speech".

It is directly analogous to decisions made by the PMG as to what shall go on U.S. postal stamps or the Mint as to the appearance of money. A constitutional right to free speech has no relevance at all to whether or not the government itself must speak (if you see what I mean)

Texas should keep producing vanity plates and authorized background plates and suggest to the objectors to engage in fornication and travel.

[Joe Guy]

Fantastic!!....

[rubato]

Moral people would be ashamed that their Ancestors were confederate veterans.

Or at least they would not boast of it.

Yes,
Rubato

[Lord Jim]

Moral people would be ashamed that their Ancestors were confederate veterans.

Or at least they would not boast of it.

Yes,
Rubato

LMAO

Now, is there anyone here...

Anyone at all...

Who thinks rube posted that for any other reason than to troll me?

If there is, I've got a burnt-orange colored bridge not too far from here I'd like to sell you...

[Crackpot]

I didn't but upon reflection I can see why you my take it that way.

[Sue U]

The Fifth Circuit's opinion (and the dissent) is interesting in its attempt to distinguish between "government speech," which does not implicate First Amendment free speech concerns, and "private speech," which does. If you're interested:

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pu ... 11-CV0.pdf

But at the Supreme Court today, it appeared the justices were pretty sure that license plate messages were private speech. And directly to that point (and mine):

[A] free-speech-for-license-plate advocate, R. James George, Jr., of Austin argued in favor of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and for a right for them to display a license plate with a Confederate flag as part of the design.

It was no surprise at all that George would open with an argument about license plates as a “public forum.” The state, he said at the outset, has “issued an open invitation” for motorists to submit plate designs.

His first adversary would be Justice Antonin Scalia, who sought to resurrect Texas’s argument that what was on the license plates was, indeed, what Texas government wanted said in those displays “If it is Texas’s speech,” Scalia commented, “all things can be said.”

George, of course, did not agree, insisting that the government had invited the public to join in a forum of public expression, with plates saying what the public wanted. And George did not shy away from arguing, in response to Justices’ questions, that Texas could not refuse a plate bearing a swastika, or one that said “Jihad,” or “Make Pot Legal,” or “Bong Hits for Jesus.”

That put off some of the Justices, or at least disturbed their sensibilities a bit, but it did have the positive value of being a way to stress that the First Amendment did have a role to play in protecting a public right of free expression on their cars and trucks.

Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/03/argum ... ore-226317

[MajGenl.Meade]

In essence, are we now to believe that the states are obligated to put on license plates anything at all that any member of public wants to have put on there?

That's just bollocks

[Gob]

"That's just bollocks," neat!

Beat "live free or die" by miles.

[Lord Jim]

Beat "live free or die" by miles.

As opposed to "Hardworking Britain Better Off"?

"That's just bollocks,"

Sounds like a great counter-slogan for the Tories...

[Gob]

Oh god I'd not seen that! Jesus, that's bad even for Millibean!!

[Lord Jim]

I don't know...

Sounds like the perfect slogan for Two Kitchens to deliver when he steps out of his pink campaign mini-bus...

[MajGenl.Meade]

He is a Paki, innit?
- N. Farage

[Sue U]

In essence, are we now to believe that the states are obligated to put on license plates anything at all that any member of public wants to have put on there?

That's just bollocks

It's bollocks because that is a complete misstatement of the issue(s) presented by this case. There are at least thee difficult line-drawing questions raised: 1) What is the standard for distinguishing "government speech" from "private speech," 2) What constitutes a "public forum" opened by the State as a venue for expression, and 3) What restrictions, if any, can regulate the content of private speech?

Texas opened itself up to this problem by inviting the public to design its own license plates. It was certainly not required to do so, but it saw an opportunity to get some cash revenue without, heaven forbid, "raising taxes." The fact that the Texas Legislature failed to fully think through the consequences of its action is no one's fault but its own -- and pretty much par for the course.