Fed Appeals Crt Orders TX to Issue Confederate License Plate

[NewOrleans]

Sigh.

I think this case is interesting, though!  Sorry about the source.


The state of Texas’s decision not to issue a license plate that incorporates the Confederate battle flag violates the First Amendment, according to a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The majority opinion by Judge Edward Prado concludes that Texas engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination by implicitly disfavoring the view that “the Confederate flag is a symbol of sacrifice, independence, and Southern heritage” and crediting the viewpoint that “the Confederate flag is an inflammatory symbol of hate and oppression.”


As a matter of law this is a genuinely difficult case, although for reasons unrelated to whether Texas engaged in viewpoint discrimination by refusing to print license plates that display a symbol used by racist, slaveholding traitors. As a general rule, the government is not allowed to discriminate among viewpoints when it regulates the speech of others, but it has wide discretion when it offers its own viewpoint — thus, the government can fund a campaign urging children not to do drugs without having to give equal time to supporters of illegal drug use. The most important, and the most challenging, legal question presented by this case is whether state-issued license plates are a form of private speech or a form of government speech.


Judge Prado’s opinion for the majority concludes that license plates reflect the views of the person who displays them on their car, and thus Texas could not exclude the viewpoints of people who support the Confederacy when it decides which plates to offer. There is, indeed, strong precedent indicating that drivers have a First Amendment interest in the message displayed on their license plate. In the 1977 Supreme Court case Wooley v. Maynard, the justices held that a New Hampshire resident could not be required to display the state’s motto “Live Free or Die,” which was printed on his state-issued license plate, under the First Amendment.


In dissent, Judge Jerry Smith argues that a more recent case, the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, changes this calculation. Among other things, Smith rejects the idea that the messages displayed by a license plate must be either government speech or private speech — they may be both. In Summum, Smith explains, the “overwhelming majority” of the government-displayed monuments at issue in that case “were designed, built, and donated by private actors; and at least some portion (if not all) of the privately donated monuments bore the inscription, name, and/or written message of the donors.” And yet, the fact that these monuments conveyed private donors’ viewpoints did not prevent the Supreme Court from concluding that the government could be selective in determining which monuments it wanted to display in a public space. Similarly, Smith argues, Texas should be allowed to be selective in determining which messages it displays on its license plates, even if these messages also reflect the viewpoints of private individuals.

As federal appeals courts are divided on the question of if and when states are required to issue license plates conveying messages the state would prefer not to convey, it is fairly likely that this case will be heard by the Supreme Court if Texas appeals.

thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/15/3460152/federal-appeals-court-orders-texas-to-issue-confederate-flag-license-plates/

[mominatrix]

I find it amazing that a court can compel a state to print a certain license plate.

Don't like "Live free or die", you can put tape over it... but MAKING the state print your license plate of choice seems... odd.

[iammalcolmx]

If you are rocking the confederate flag, don't fucking expect me to let you cut in front of me in traffic.

[ESF]

Jul 15, 2014 10:09:03 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

I find it amazing that a court can compel a state to print a certain license plate.

Don't like "Live free or die", you can put tape over it... but MAKING the state print your license plate of choice seems... odd.

I think often states have programs where organizations can apply to create special license plates, and sometimes some proceeds go back to the organization.   

In this case, it was the Sons of Confederate Veterans Organization.

www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140714-group-wins-case-to-sell-confederate-license-plates-in-texas.ece

I don't like that these assholes get to do this, but I think if the state is going to allow organizations to use license plates as fundraisers, they don't get to pick and choose based on what speech they like and don't like.  

There's a lot of states with "Choose Life" license plates but only a few with pro-choice license plates.  This is a great ruling for people who want states to be forced to give time to opposing viewpoints.

[PinkSquirrel]

Jul 15, 2014 10:54:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jul 15, 2014 10:09:03 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

I find it amazing that a court can compel a state to print a certain license plate.

Don't like "Live free or die", you can put tape over it... but MAKING the state print your license plate of choice seems... odd.

I think often states have programs where organizations can apply to create special license plates, and sometimes some proceeds go back to the organization.   

In this case, it was the Sons of Confederate Veterans Organization.

www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140714-group-wins-case-to-sell-confederate-license-plates-in-texas.ece

I don't like that these assholes get to do this, but I think if the state is going to allow organizations to use license plates as fundraisers, they don't get to pick and choose based on what speech they like and don't like.  

There's a lot of states with "Choose Life" license plates but only a few with pro-choice license plates.  This is a great ruling for people who want states to be forced to give time to opposing viewpoints.

It's always been my understanding that pro abortion rights license plates aren't really around because the large abortion orgs frankly have better/more important things to spend their time and money on.    Working on license plates would be a distraction from working on access and the priority is obviously access.  Since those who are anti abortion rights aren't actually providing medical care they have all the time in the world to work on nonsense like license plates.   

[ESF]

Jul 15, 2014 11:04:14 GMT -5 PinkSquirrel said:

Jul 15, 2014 10:54:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

I think often states have programs where organizations can apply to create special license plates, and sometimes some proceeds go back to the organization.   

In this case, it was the Sons of Confederate Veterans Organization.

www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140714-group-wins-case-to-sell-confederate-license-plates-in-texas.ece

I don't like that these assholes get to do this, but I think if the state is going to allow organizations to use license plates as fundraisers, they don't get to pick and choose based on what speech they like and don't like.  

There's a lot of states with "Choose Life" license plates but only a few with pro-choice license plates.  This is a great ruling for people who want states to be forced to give time to opposing viewpoints.

It's always been my understanding that pro abortion rights license plates aren't really around because the large abortion orgs frankly have better/more important things to spend their time and money on.    Working on license plates would be a distraction from working on access and the priority is obviously access.  Since those who are anti abortion rights aren't actually providing medical care they have all the time in the world to work on nonsense like license plates.   

You may be right on their strategy.  That said, had this ruling have gone the other way, states such as Texas would have been able to deny Planned Parenthood a license plate while at the same time, allowing Choose Life plates.  

[NewOrleans]

Jul 15, 2014 10:54:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jul 15, 2014 10:09:03 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

I find it amazing that a court can compel a state to print a certain license plate.

Don't like "Live free or die", you can put tape over it... but MAKING the state print your license plate of choice seems... odd.

I don't like that these assholes get to do this, but I think if the state is going to allow organizations to use license plates as fundraisers, they don't get to pick and choose based on what speech they like and don't like.  

There's a lot of states with "Choose Life" license plates but only a few with pro-choice license plates.  This is a great ruling for people who want states to be forced to give time to opposing viewpoints.


ESF, VA's were ruled unconstitutional.

[ESF]

NewOrleans -- I was curious so I looked them up. Virginia still offers them. Virginia also offers pro-choice ones.

North Carolina's were ruled unconstitutional because the legislature refused to also offer a pro-choice one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_Life_license_plates

[NewOrleans]

Jul 15, 2014 11:18:28 GMT -5 ESF said:

NewOrleans -- I was curious so I looked them up. Virginia still offers them. Virginia also offers pro-choice ones.

North Carolina's were ruled unconstitutional because the legislature refused to also offer a pro-choice one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choose_Life_license_plates

Yes, sorry, I was thinking of NC!

pandce.proboards.com/thread/289155/choose-life-license-plates-unconstitutional?page=1#scrollTo=5453425

[msmerymac]

Jul 15, 2014 10:54:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jul 15, 2014 10:09:03 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

I find it amazing that a court can compel a state to print a certain license plate.

Don't like "Live free or die", you can put tape over it... but MAKING the state print your license plate of choice seems... odd.

I think often states have programs where organizations can apply to create special license plates, and sometimes some proceeds go back to the organization.   

In this case, it was the Sons of Confederate Veterans Organization.

www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140714-group-wins-case-to-sell-confederate-license-plates-in-texas.ece

I don't like that these assholes get to do this, but I think if the state is going to allow organizations to use license plates as fundraisers, they don't get to pick and choose based on what speech they like and don't like.  

There's a lot of states with "Choose Life" license plates but only a few with pro-choice license plates.  This is a great ruling for people who want states to be forced to give time to opposing viewpoints.

Right, but I guess the question is when something like this crosses from free speech to hate speech. Why are bigoted and racist viewpoints that are offensive to a good chunk of the population okay on a state-sanctioned license plate? 

I guess while reading the article, I took issue with the fact that the court saw the representation of the Confederate flag as a legitimate symbol of "sacrifice, independence and Southern heritage," as if that opinion is completely equal to the opinion that it is a racist symbol of hate and supremacy. 

[ESF]

Jul 15, 2014 12:56:48 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Jul 15, 2014 10:54:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

I think often states have programs where organizations can apply to create special license plates, and sometimes some proceeds go back to the organization.   

In this case, it was the Sons of Confederate Veterans Organization.

www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140714-group-wins-case-to-sell-confederate-license-plates-in-texas.ece

I don't like that these assholes get to do this, but I think if the state is going to allow organizations to use license plates as fundraisers, they don't get to pick and choose based on what speech they like and don't like.  

There's a lot of states with "Choose Life" license plates but only a few with pro-choice license plates.  This is a great ruling for people who want states to be forced to give time to opposing viewpoints.

Right, but I guess the question is when something like this crosses from free speech to hate speech. Why are bigoted and racist viewpoints that are offensive to a good chunk of the population okay on a state-sanctioned license plate? 

I guess while reading the article, I took issue with the fact that the court saw the representation of the Confederate flag as a legitimate symbol of "sacrifice, independence and Southern heritage," as if that opinion is completely equal to the opinion that it is a racist symbol of hate and supremacy. 

I tend to think that the classification of "hate speech" borders on unconstitutional in some situations, and would certainly be so here.  

That said, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I highly doubt the State of Texas called this group a hate group or classified the use of the confederate flag as "hate speech."   I'm guessing their resistance was on softer territory.  So the issue of whether a state may ban "hate speech" from license plates wasn't something the court was deciding; it was deciding whether Texas could open up a program to everyone, then censor some speech but not others on the basis of its viewpoint.

Finally, while I agree that the confederate flag is not a legitimate symbol of sacrifice, etc, I strongly disagree that state governments should be in the business of deciding which political opinions have value and which don't.

I don't want these racist asshats having more power than they already do.  But if I have to choose between them and censorship, they win.

The solution is not to censor distasteful groups.  It's for states to get out of the business of political messaging on license plates.

[summer]

Jul 15, 2014 9:12:35 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Sigh.

I think this case is interesting, though!  Sorry about the source.


The state of Texas’s decision not to issue a license plate that incorporates the Confederate battle flag violates the First Amendment, according to a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The majority opinion by Judge Edward Prado concludes that Texas engaged in impermissible viewpoint discrimination by implicitly disfavoring the view that “the Confederate flag is a symbol of sacrifice, independence, and Southern heritage” and crediting the viewpoint that “the Confederate flag is an inflammatory symbol of hate and oppression.”

I stopped reading right here.  Don't get me started on the Confederate flag. You went to war against America so you could continue to buy, own, sell, and rape people?  Don't come at me with "sacrifice, independence, and heritage."  No.  I couldn't even read the rest of the article.