The Supreme Court is going to hear arguments on whether it was a violation of free speech rights to reject the Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate. This is my non-law-talking-guy understanding:
The Sons of Confederate Veterans asked to have their license plate approved; the plate contains the Confederate Battle Flag. The Texas DMV deadlocked on the question. When they revisited it, there were protests and the DMV decided to reject it. The Sons sued and won at the Federal Court level. Questions that are at issue:
Is a specialty license plate government speech? And, if so, can the government be compelled to speak?
Or, is it personal speech, and then were the Sons’ rights violated?
Other states already have the plate available – does that help the Sons’ case?
There are probably more issues at hand. Here’s my opinion:
Those plates are not government speech. If they were, then plates such as God Bless Texas may be an impermissible mingling of church and state. They are personal speech on a government plate. The government can’t be compelled to put any possible messages on there, but unless the message is widely offensive (Go Nazis! or Texas says Fuck Oklahoma!), they should allow the message. The fact that other states already have SoC plates weakens the government’s case that it is widely offensive.
I don’t really like those plates. NJ seems to have extremely innocuous ones (Shore to Please, for example), but even so, they invite trouble such as this. Texas brought this on themselves in order to make extra money for these plates. I’m not a big fan of God Bless Texas or Choose Life, but I don’t think they are unconstitutional. If Texas decided to get rid of all of the specialty plates, they could do that and avoid the issue. But, since they have them, they are required to allow this one.
Anyway, I’d love to hear from the real law-talkers on this.
I don’t think that’s the issue. No one would argue that “KLL JWS” is acceptable license plate material. The issue at had is whether that particular logo can be rejected by the DMV when it is sanctioned by the State Legislature in other areas (state holiday, items sold in the Sate House gift shop, etc.). If the state of Texas had, per the legislature, decided that logo (or saying or whatever it was) was not kosher (pardon the pun) on state property, then the DMV would be in line with the legislature. Anyway, that’s the way it was explained on NPR recently per the defendant’s attorney.
Is it constitutional for the state to restrict what goes on its license plates or is that an abridgment of free speech?
Can the DMV issue rules that run contrary to what the state legislature has already approved in other areas?
For #1 I would say of course the state can restrict what goes on its license plates and that is not an abridgement of free speech. It would lead to crazy results if citizens could impose their speech on the government.
For #2 I guess it depends how government is set up which I do not know. I would think the DMV is allowed to be the arbiter in such cases unless the legislature has been explicit. That is how they were set up. That is part of their job as defined by the state legislature and they were doing it.
It seems crazy the DMV (or any state agency) has to guess the legislature’s wishes. Just because they sell confederate flags in the capitol gift shop does not necessarily mean the legislature wants that on license plates.
So can the DMV deny that plate? Sure.
Can the Texas legislature override them and make the plate ok if they want to? Sure.
For #1 above, the United States Court of Appeals disagrees with you. Texas apparently has hundreds of different specialty license plates – could the sheer number of designs work against them? That is, if they allow hundreds of groups to have their own license plate, it seems arbitrary to disallow the Sons. Plus, the large number of plates makes it seem less like state speech and more like personal speech. They have one for Calvary Hill with crosses on it. There’s one for the Daughters of the American Revolution, which would seem to be pretty equivalent to the Sons of the Confederacy. There’s one with Dr. Pepper. There’s one that says Come and Take It (I frankly have no idea what that’s about).
Is Texas saying that it specifically sponsors Dr. Pepper through its speech?
In Texas’ war for independence from Mexico, there was a small skirmish in Gonzales where the Mexican contingent was charged with capturing a small cannon the Texians had installed at a blockhouse. That cannon had been provided them by the Mexican government four years before the revolution began. Texians fashioned a small white flag with a picture of the cannon, along with the phrase “COME AND TAKE IT”, which the Mexican army never accomplished. It became a rallying cry and a popular symbol later, even to this day. I still see them around with some frequency. In fact I believe it’s the backdrop in one of the courts buildings seen on local (Houston) news.
I don’t think one branch of a state government can say “X speech is OK for group A” and another branch can say “X speech is not OK for group B”. If that is the case here (and I’m not 100% certain it is), then I would say the state needs one standard for all citizens when speech involves state property.
Does that then mean the state has to sell anybody’s stuff in their gift shop? If the confederate flag can be sold there then can anyone come to them with a flag and tell them they have to offer it for sale too?
The DAR had some mean old biddies in charge, back in the day. Are you thinking of their refusal to let Marian Anderson sing in their hall? The DAR now has black members–descended from free & freed blacks who fought. Or descended from Fine Old Southern Patriots.
The DAR represent a rebellion that won. Not a traitorous failure–commemorated by a symbol that was resurrected in the 20th century as an emblem of racism. Let the Old Confederates use a portrait of Jefferson Davis on their plates–and plaster their pickups with any bumper stickers they like…
My first thought upon reading the WaPo article on this case was, “Well, if they allow the plates, at least we will know who the assholes are.”
And then it occurred to me: I think that means it is an issue of individuals’ speech at stake here, because I will blame the person driving the car, as opposed to the state of Texas, for being a Confederate-sympathizing jerk.
Not that I’m letting Texas entirely off the hook. But still.
I was thinking that the DAR and the Sons are similar in that they both honor the direct descendants of some historical group. According the the Sons spokesman (from the NY Times article):
[QUOTE=NY Times Article]
“There are black members, Hispanic members, Jewish members and Native American members,” Mr. Jones said, adding that he could not provide numbers and doubted that such breakdowns are kept.
[/QUOTE]
I think your statement about the traitorous failure would resonate more with the Supreme Court if Texas didn’t honor the Confederate fighters in other ways. Also from the Times article:
[QUOTE=NY Times Article]
The heritage group accused Texas of hypocrisy. It has noted that the state celebrates Confederate Heroes Day, has erected monuments to Confederate soldiers and sells miniature Confederate flags in the Texas Capitol gift shop.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s suppose that there is another agency similar to the DMV. Let’s say that a state offered, for a fee, to allow people to put a message on their marriage licenses. Now, suppose the county clerk decided "speech X’ is not allowed on marriage licensees and the DMV said “speech X” is allow on license plates. I think we’d all agree that such a condition would not be constitutional, but would that be a Free Speech issue or an Equal Protection issue? I’m thinking the latter. The state should be able to regulate speech that goes on state property, but not arbitrarily so that some groups are allowed a certain type of speech and others are not.
I’m really not sure if anyone finds it offensive. I’d imagine its history is obscure enough that many would not. There is a COME AND TAKE IT celebration annually in Gonzales though, which has an appreciable latino population and probably are better versed on its past. I’ve no idea what their sentiments on it are. This article about the flag’s history further mentions;
*The phrase “Come and Take It” dates back to King Leonidas I defying the Persian army to take his army’s weapons with the phrase “Molon labe” at the Battle of Thermopylae. *(“Molon labe”, come and take them.)
<snip> It has come to symbolize defiance against someone or something looking to grind you down or deprive you of a right or privilege.
Taken in that vein, I wouldn’t think so.
The Dr. Pepper plate you mention, Dr. Pepper’s home is in Waco where a large museum dedicated to its history resides. It’s very popular in the state and a bit of Texas pride for many. As for Re/Max, I have no clue.
Yes, and the Swastika is an ancient symbol used by many cultures over the millenia. However, if somebody wears it now, I know what they mean.
As I’ve said, let the Confederate Failures petition to have Jefferson Davis’s ugly face plastered on their license plates. That ugly flag means racism. I’ve lived in the South most of my life & I know this.
Do you think matters to the SC that Texas celebrates other parts of Confederate history? Do you think it matters that other states have essentially the same plate?
I think that will matter to SCOTUS and they will rule in favor of the Sons of the Confederacy. My personal opinion is that these plates are a dumb way for states to make extra money. They will inevitably venture into controversial waters.
(Seriously, Choose Life in Texas? Does anyone execute more prisoners than TX?)