program.

I have always thought the vanity plates were pretty dumb to begin with. And I have thought for a long time that eventually it would come to this.

get rid of them all.

Auburn and Alabama plates are big mo ey around here

stupid people make things that were once good into something stupid.

Texas did not refuse you your right to advertise yourself as a dumbass with a bumper sticker, window decal, or flag with the Confederate battle flag on it. You can still paint your van with the flag

All it did was refuse to sell you a license plate with said flag on it.

As far as I know, it will also not sell you a plate with a hammer&sickle, SS insignia or "Beaners Go Home" on it.

So, suck it up Sons of the Confederacy-- Texas (of all places) knows what you really mean with that plate.

You can still paint your van with the flag. All it did was refuse to sell you a license plate with said flag on it.

A license plate is tantamount to the state sponsoring and/or condoning hate. No one stops you from hating, just don't get the full faith of the state behind it.

without the flag. They still get their advertising of their group, but no flag

would have been okay with you?

the Rainbow flag, should the republicans desire it.

"Be careful of the weapons you use against your foes. They could be turned around on you one day."

Armbands or peace symbols havent been used as props for racist groups. The flag supporters have no one to blame but themselves for letting the klan or who ever take over the flag. And my ancestors fought for the South; one was wounded. But the SoCV could have their tag and their name without using the flag. Although other states do allow it, including mine
But I do see the reason to allow it too, and people need to stop being offended by EVERYTHING these days. I just dont see flags as speech, just like i dont see money as speech.

You think the First Amendment only protects inoffensive speech.

Of course, the point of the First Amendment isn't to protect speech that doesn't need protecting.

And would you also be okay with the government banning the folks who support DU with contributions from doing so and also banning the folks that run DU from spending any money to operate the site?

How does DU contributions compare to a flag? Unless you agree with the Citizens United and think spending money is also speech. I dont. I dont see a call for govt to restrict who people give their cash to.
And i'm the first to be critical of people shouting down speakers they dont agree with or trying to stop them from speaking, like SO many colleges do. If the only way one can defend one's point is to stop someone else from speaking THEIR point, you have a lousy case

Texas or Alabama town wanted to ban the rainbow flag?

But with the confederate flag, i guess if the court allows it, then you could pretty much force them to make up ANY kind of plate? I kind of look at it like prayer; if you let one group use the school for meetings, then you're going to HAVE to let every group use the school whether you like it of not.
The flag doesnt offend me, I uust think its funny that so many want to identify with the losing side. Not to mention that losing the war was the best thing that couldve happened to the South, IMO. i just dont think the states should be picking and choosing on the subject. I think there's a difference between those types or plates and wildlife type plates that raise money for the state.

Is there a difference between a flag (not protected in your view) and a button, badge, sign, banner, etc. Would a flag with a peace symbol not be protected, but a button worn with a peace symbol be protected? Or again, can anything other than "speaking" (by which I assume you mean words expressed orally and in writing) be regulated out of existence at the whim of the government?

Is music a protected form of expression if it has no lyrics?
Are photographs, paintings and other forms of visual art protected forms of expression?

Apparently you don't think they are,which puts you at odds with generations of progressive thinking that equates freedom of speech with freedom of expression.

As for CU, I believe it was wrongly decided, not because it concluded corporations are "persons" for purposes of the first amendment or because spending money to create protected speech should be protected, but because it disregarded well established lines that can and should constitutionally be drawn between different types of speech and speakers where there is a compelling government interest to do so.

If these groups want to have their flag flying in their yard or vehicle, so be it. But the state shouldnt be forced to produce a license plate for it.
Music, paintings, etc, are of course expression. But I dont believe the state should be involved with their production either. There is a line that should separate govt actions and private actions.
Another example would be "art" that many deem offensive. If you want to display it, fine, go rent a private venue and put on a show. But dont expect the local library to display it. Just like you cant rent out porn at the library either, but you can in a private business

The judges seem to agree that specialty license plates are both public and private, since Texas tells people they can add their "personal touch" for a hefty fee. So the art example is not the best.

Its a complex area -- far more so than your analysis would suggest. Public libraries have considerable discretion in deciding what titles to offer and what titles not to offer. But as a matter of First Amendment jurisprudence, that discretion is not unlimited. The state needs to have a compelling reason to make viewpoint/content based distinctions. So if a public library decided to remove from all its shelves all books by or about Muslims, or all books by or about Democrats etc, it likely would be unable to justify that decision. And it wouldn't matter if the distinction only applied to photo books or books with paintings, or musical compositions by a particular group. Porn is easy. Content neutral decisions are easy. But content or speaker-based distinctions are not so easily defended.

Moreover, the situation with license plates has its own complexities. If the government issued only licenses that they designed themselves, it is unlikely that anyone could demand that the state also issue licenses with other designs. On the other hand, the state can't force someone to display the state's design if it conveys a message -- so if NH insists on putting "Live Free or Die" on its license plates, then individuals can tape over that message. Presumably, if a state issued (not on request) a license plate with a confederate flag (or a US flag) drivers could obscure that portion of the tag so long as it did not obscure the license number itself.

But if the state invites citizens to design their own tags, the state cannot decide which plate designs to accept or reject based on the content of the plate unless there is a compelling state interest in the distinction drawn. Thus, states can reject pornographic messages on tags. At what point a tag with a a message that some will find offensive can be rejected is the issue and how the state decides what messages are offensive --- that 's the difficult issue.

Now get off my lawn.

Very interesting reasoning.

What "free speech" does the state provide that would require free books in order to utilize?

Let alone free cars.
It costs 8000 dollars to get a specialty plate. The problem might be that it's unclear why you are talking about receiving free stuff.

If having an special license plate is free speech, then I need a car to exercise it or my free speech is being denied.

Or

If a license plate is free speech, and the state denies me a license plate, it is therefore denying my free speech.


Equal rights therefore equals free cars.

Of course in reality this isn't a free speech issue, because registered license plates for vehicles aren't a platform for speech.

"aren't a platform for speech." But what are messages on a license plate, if not "speech"? Isn't Texas giving organizations and individuals a platform for speech in exchange for money?

make them for the KKK, NAMBLA, or the Orly Taitz fan club.

License plates are used as vehicle identifiers.

That is not a dispute over that. The dispute is about whether the message proposed by Sons of the Confederates can be used as identifier or whether the state can reject it as an identifier.

Because the state is not required to make specialty license plates for anyone who wants them. They can also turn down messages that people put on personalized plates.

This isn't a free speech issue. No one is preventing any Texan from free speech.

where you can get a Freebirds World Burrito and a Mighty Fine Burger specialty plate. The Dr. Pepper one is pretty cool, though.


http://txdmv.gov/motorists/license-plates/specialty-license-plates

I'm amazed by all the plates for schools that aren't even in Texas...

I am of course saying this in jest but as the article points out, its been nearly 150 years since the Confederate States LOST THE FUCKING WAR!!!

Get over it you racist losers....

.....that's what happened. Bunch of redneck wankers.

It's a racist symbol and the Confederacy LOST, but I'll trade 'em: let the state cancel the "Don't Tread on Me" and "Come and Take It" plates, and they can have the Sons of Confederate Veterans one.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans are a bunch of racist assholes that need to wake up to the reality that their ancestors were traitors to their nation and humanity.

States reject vanity plates all the time for offensive language.
I have a hard time seeing how this is different.

The fact that there have been other instances of rejected plates doesn't mean they are all constitutional.

A specialty plate is a plate that the state produces with a special symbol or design. People can opt for one of those instead of the standard design.

A vanity plate is a plate that has a custom message- mine is IOBJECT. States do frequently reject vanity plate messages if they can be construed as offensive.

Either way, the state is saying that they have the right to reject a state issued plate which the state deems to be objectionable.

But I still dont see an offense at denying it. They can have their plate with the groups name on it.

That is why the Supreme Court ruled flag burning was protected speech under the 1st amendment.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/free-speech-flag-burning/facts-case-summary.aspx

Since it has been ruled to be protected free speech.

What would be the difference?

Only difference is Germans aren't in denial about the swastika's meaning.

I couldn't use any language that was understandable to say Choice so I went to Polish. They have no idea what it means. Maybe since I have had it for years I will reveal it to the tag office this November. Wonder what they will say. We have a pro life tag, my response was to have a choice tag.

Actually, I like the idea of racist car tags, they make it easier to spot the racist. Kinda like if a store owner supports the Klan, they should have a sign at the front of the store proudly displaying the fact. And I can proudly walk out, confident that my money is not going to racists.

to me. License plates are obtained by the state, where one
registers one's car.
Why then and how does the SCOTUS come in? It should be
the highest court in TX, which should decide on this.

In this case I would think states' rights should come into
play. If the court decides for TX, does it then apply to
all states?

Because the Supreme Court is more than one person state court.

This is not a Free Speech issue. The government is not stopping anyone from putting anything they want on their cars. The government however, has no requirement to facilitate anyone who wants to make a offensive statement (or even a non-offensive statement).

put anything at all on a tag that someone demanded? There are some pretty demented and sick people out there. I used to enjoy reading
license plates on long trips, and seeing people's creativity at getting out a message in a few letters and numbers. I might start avoiding reading them instead.