Supreme Court Blocks Texas Confederate Flag License Plate
Last edited Thu Jun 18, 2015, 01:18 PM - Edit history (2)
Source: Associated Press via CBS Dallas-Ft. Worth TV
June 18, 2015 9:33 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld Texas refusal to issue a license plate bearing the Confederate battle flag, rejecting a free-speech challenge.
The court said in a 5-4 ruling that Texas can limit the content of license plates because they are state property and not the equivalent of bumper stickers.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans had sought a Texas plate bearing its logo with the battle flag. A state board rejected it over concerns that the license plate would offend many Texans.
Justice Stephen Breyer said the states decision to reject the groups plate did not violate its free speech rights. Justice Clarence Thomas and the courts other three liberal justices joined Breyers opinion.
Read more: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/06/18/supreme-court-blocks-texas-confederate-flag-license-plate/
Full disclosure: I am eligible to join the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A local history book about the SCV's chapter in my city was recently published. I was amazed at how many of the members I knew while growing up.
SCOTUSblog live blog of opinions
Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans
Alito's dissent is worth reading, though currently the text of the decision is not in a form that makes cutting and pasting an easy task. I, too, find it hard to imagine that all of the 350-plus versions of vanity plates in Texas could be construed as the official position of the state.
The Courts decision passes off private speech as government speech and, in doing so, establishes a precedent that threatens private speech that government finds displeasing. Under our First Amendment cases, the distinction between government speech and private speech is critical. The First Amendment does not regulate government speech, and therefore when government speaks, it is free to select the views that it wants to express. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 467468 (2009). By contrast, (i)n the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828 (1995).
Unfortunately, the Courts decision categorizes private speech as government speech and thus strips it of all First Amendment protection. The Court holds that all the privately created messages on the many specialty plates issued by the State of Texas convey a government message rather than the message of the motorist displaying the plate. Can this possibly be correct?
Here is a test. Suppose you sat by the side of a Texas highway and studied the license plates on the vehicles passing by. You would see, in addition to the standard Texas plates, an impressive array of specialty plates. (There are now more than 350 varieties.) You would likely observe plates that honor numerous colleges and universities. You might see plates bearing the name of a high school, a fraternity or sorority, the Masons, the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of the American Revolution, a realty company, a favorite soft drink, a favorite burger restaurant, and a favorite NASCAR driver.
As you sat there watching these plates speed by, would you really think that the sentiments reflected in these specialty plates are the views of the State of Texas and not those of the owners of the cars? If a car with a plate that says Rather Be Golfing passed by at 8:30 am on a Monday morning, would you think: This is the official policy of the Statebetter to golf than to work? If you did your viewing at the start of the college football season and you saw Texas plates with the names of the University of Texass out-of-state competitors in upcoming gamesNotre Dame, Oklahoma State, the University of Oklahoma, Kansas State, Iowa Statewould you assume that the State of Texas was officially (and perhaps treasonously) rooting for the Longhorns opponents? And when a car zipped by with a plate that reads NASCAR 24 Jeff Gordon, would you think that Gordon (born in California, raised in Indiana, resides in North Carolina)1 is the official favorite of the State government?
The Court says that all of these messages are government speech. It is essential that government be able to express its own viewpoint, the Court reminds us, because otherwise, how would it promote its programs, like recycling and vaccinations? Ante, at 56. So when Texas issues a Rather Be Golfing plate, but not a Rather Be Playing Tennis or Rather Be Bowling plate, it is furthering a state policy to promote golf but not tennis or bowling. And when Texas allows motorists to obtain a Notre Dame license plate but not a University of Southern California plate, it is taking sides in that long-time rivalry.
This capacious understanding of government speech takes a large and painful bite out of the First Amendment. Specialty plates may seem innocuous. They make motorists happy, and they put money in a States coffers. But the precedent this case sets is dangerous. While all license plates unquestionably contain some government speech (e.g., the name of the State and the numbers and/or letters identifying the vehicle), the State of Texas has converted the remaining space on its specialty plates into little mobile billboards on which motorists can display their own messages. And what Texas did here was to reject one of the messages that members of a private group wanted to post on some of these little billboards because the State thought that many of its citizens would find the message offensive. That is blatant viewpoint discrimination.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Clarence Thomas voted with the liberals??????????????????????????????
Shocking
former9thward
(32,093 posts)The media loves to frame it that way but people who follow the court know better.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)But when they are, there is quite often a distinct left right divide, and there is one in this case.
question everything
(47,544 posts)dsc
(52,169 posts)I can definately see it used to prevent planned parenthood or AIDS charities from having plates in a wide swath of states.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,647 posts)Besides in some cases where the organization would no longer get a percentage of the price of the plate, what's the big deal?
When someone tries to pass a law banning bumper stickers, that'll be a different matter.
dsc
(52,169 posts)my tax money being used to facilitate fundraising for causes on one side of the abortion issue but not the other. Why should pro choice tax payers be forced to tolerate that?
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,647 posts)I don't have one, but they cost more than regular plates. The state or, in my case, commonwealth, rakes in money from vanity plates.
Sorry, specialty plates.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)dsc
(52,169 posts)of which there are more than a few in states like mine, they are worse than the Confederate flag.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Those are not historic symbols of oppression and racism.
dsc
(52,169 posts)and thus I have to live with what they get permission to do. They just got permission to play favorites with licence plates.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)They said Texas can refuse to issue the license plate. They did not ban any states from issuing Confederate flag license plates...and there are states that might do just that. So, really, they were doing the "states' rights" thing with this ruling. Some states still have that flag in their state flag. Knowing how those types are, they will do it just to be jerks.
I had not thought of what you just mentioned. I can see some states trying to do just what you said too, now that you mention it.
Newsjock
(11,733 posts)They serve a legal and legitimate purpose. If someone wants a Confederate flag, a rainbow flag, an NRA logo, or anything else, they can affix a bumper sticker like they always could.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,647 posts)I Fought The DMV To Keep The World's Greatest License Plate
Every time I see it, I get a big laugh out of it.
Anyway, about thirty years ago, someone in the Shenandoah Valley had ATHIST or something close as a vanity plate. Someone complained, and the DMV recalled the plate. I can Google that, though it happened before there was an Internet.
hamsterjill
(15,224 posts)As a Texan, I think it's ridiculous that my tax dollars are being spent because some idiots insist on putting a venomous message on a license plate. I think we should go back to black and white plates, issued in subsequent order by the DMV, one size fits all, and as you indicate, allow drivers to "decorate" their cars via bumper stickers, etc.
AwareOne
(404 posts)This is blatant discrimination against the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The appeals court had it right. When my state issued a "Choose Life I am4" it license plate I bitched to my congressman and the governor,Jeb Bush and they augured that the message was an individuals and not a state message or endorsement. Now the court is saying just the opposite in this decision. So which is it? Is my state officially a right to life state? Get ready for a flood of law suites.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,647 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Mass murderer and terrorist Dylann Roof had him some confederate license plates......what does one think about that?
The confederate flag also flys over the SC legislature....a symbol of oppression and racism for all to see...another thing that must go.
packman
(16,296 posts)No, that can't be right. It's like that Georgia thing - another country. Has to be a rift in the parallel universe thing.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)In California the DMV will censor your personalized license plate if you submit " I8TWOT " and possibly " DICKARMY"
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 18, 2015, 05:43 PM - Edit history (1)
Given that the States have decided to permit such plates, it is thus ALL IS PERMITTED, including Nazi Symbols AND "Death to Nazis" Symbols.
A similar problem developed in the 1970s and 1980s in US Airports. The Salvation Army had for years been permitted to set up kettles and ask for donations. Other people then demanded to be permitted to do the same. The courts ruled that Airports. being Government run and owned, has to treat everyone equally, thus since the Airports had permitted the Salvation Army to ask for donations the Airports had to leave anyone else to ask for donations. The Court did permit a total ban on such activities, but if you gave one exception, such an exception must be available to everyone. Airports took the hint and just banned everyone, including the Salvation Army.
The same rule of law should apply here, you either permit EVERYONE to have a Plate, or no one. That is the rule as to everything else when it comes to state issued items and should be the rule for license plates. Otherwise Alito has it right, by permitting the State to determine what can go on a plate, beyond what the state needs to be on the plate, you are creating a public forum and restricting who can use that public forum. Thus the a State can determine who can use such Public Forum and thus control "Speech" to "Speech" the State agrees with. Such a restriction by the State on a Public Forum is NOT permitted under the First Amendment.
Here is the actual opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,647 posts)Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Where'd you find that bit of silliness?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)At least when it comes to symbols of racial bias and hatred Thomas did not unlearn the lessons of his youth.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)reasoning for denying the Sons of $%#@^& the Confederate veterans their "special" - license plate -
The Texas Board explained that it had found it necessary to deny the plate design application, specifically the confederate flag portion of the design, because public comments had shown that many members of the general public find the design offensive, and because such comments are reasonable.. The Board added that a significant portion of the public associate the confederate flag with organizations advocating expressions of hate directed toward people or groups that is demeaning to those people or groups.
Now Nikki Haley - TAKE DOWN THE CONFEDERATE flag - flying over the SC STATES (govt.) building....
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,647 posts)the American Freedom Defense Initiative applied for vanity plates, obviously not in Texas in the light of this decision. Their logo? A drawing of the prophet Mohammed. Would they be able to get those plates?
Gothmog
(145,631 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Gothmog
(145,631 posts)Skittles
(153,209 posts)Veldrick
(73 posts)NY now can't be told to accept it.