Read post #23.
Oh weird, that was EXACTLY what I pictured! Does that make me a bigot?
Yup.
Obviously there are different conjectures in the U.S. but speaking as a Brit I do not automatically identify the Confederate flag with a support for racism or slavery.
But as maybe a nostalgic celebration of Southern culture.
We had a thing over here where rightwing extremists hijacked the Union Flag(incorrectly often known as the Union Jack) , and as a result left wing extremists brought pressure to bear on the police services to stop people flying the U.F. in their own country; as it was provocative to ethnic minorities and probably a racist statement.
Government buildings were O.K. to fly it but individuals weren’t.
There are far too many people wandering around with a chip on their shoulders hoping to feel racially offended by perfectly innocuous things.
The result ?
The majority start switching off to reports of encitement to racial hatred when it actually happens and ethnic minorities have to suffer the consequences.
You’re correct; a great many folks display it in one form or another without intending a racist message.
:rolleyes: They may not intend it, but they sure don’t care if people take it that way.
I used to see it as a celebration of Southern culture, but the people who actually used the flag symbol were often the racist assholes, so much so that non-racists won’t display the flag, just to make sure they’re not associated with the other set who does. The bad has driven out the good.
Working from memory and a very old Washington Post article, but VA once banned ATH*IST as offensive. I think it means they can ban anything at that point.
Professional interest, not personal.
No. A lot of folks do resent being presumed to be sending a racist message which they do not intend.
More than a few are pissed off, both at those who (in this view) misuse it, and those who misinterpret it.
Then they should take a close look at the symbols they use to send their message and perhaps choose one less draped in racial intolerance.
It is not consistent with the 1st Amendment. First issue to be resolved is the question of government speech. The government, as speaker, can censor speech consistent with the 1st Amendment. However, the courts have addressed vanity plates and have held vanity plates are private speech, not government speech. Hence, the government may impose view point neutral restrictions, such as no obscenity, vulgarity, etcetera. Now, there may be a difference between vanity plates and specialty plates.
ANITA L. KAHN, P v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
Court of Appeals of California, Second District.
Perry v. McDonald, 280 F. 3d 159 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2001
Lewis v. Wilson, 253 F. 3d 1077 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 2001
I have yet to see any of the “Heritage, not hate” contingent do or say anything when the Confederate flag is misused by a bunch of racist assholes. If you let a bunch of yahoos drag your beloved flag through the sewer, don’t be surprised to find that people complain about the stink.
If it has nothing to do with race, why do they use the battle flag? The confederacy had a peacetime flag. The war was fought, no matter how nuanced you want to get about states rights or any other issue, primarily over slavery.
Well, you do own your license plate. After all, it is a something you purchase from the government to affix to your car. However, we are not discussing mere license plates but a situation where the government has allowed people to create specialty plates/vanity plates. In other words, this is parallel to an open forum created by the state in regards to license plates and the government cannot restrict the open forum it created on the basis of view piont/content discrimination consistent with the 1st Amendment.
TWEEEEET!
Before the issue of the Confederate Battle Flag hijacks this thread, recall that the mentality and disposition of people displaying or objecting to that symbol is not topic in this thread.
Please stick to the issue of whether the state has (or should have) the right to censor the text on state issued license plates.
If we need one more round of whether people displaying the Battle Flag are racists or whether those opposing are unnecessarily projecting their own prejudices, take it to a new thread.
[ /Moderating ]
There was also a license plate case out of New Hampshire. That state puts its motto, “Live Free Or Die” on all of its plates. Some guy who had apparently found a third alternative objected to having to bear this motto on his vehicle and covered it with black tape. The police took exception to his actions, the matter went to court, and the judge ruled that it was not an infringement of the man’s 1st Am. rights to have to carry around the state’s motto.
It is view point neutral because nobody is permitted to use the speech. For example, a law which said those calling for segregation of the races is not permitted to use obscenities or vulgarities is not a view point neutral restriction. The basis of the restriction is predicated upon the view point, the idea being expressed. This has the effect of the state making “one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules.” J. Scalia, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota.
However, the state can, consistent with the 1st Amendment, prohibit speech which is obscene or vulgar. If those plates referenced above qualify for either category, then the state can prohibit the speech. It is view point neutral because the prohibition is not predicated upon the idea expressed but the manner in which it is expressed, i.e. obscene, vulgar.
Just the other day I followed a car with the license plate 4CKJ000. I was amazed that it was issued.
We’re like Nazis for not letting people be like Nazis.