isn't against federal law, pure and simple. First Amendment, yeah. Is treasonous speech protected by the First Amendment? I hope not.

But this is a good start. Now let's have all those southern states which incorporate the Confederate treason in their flags remove them also.

from on a state sanctioned license plate. If you want to advertise that you are a vile racist on your own property it is protected speech, it would seem to me. We are not currently in that civil war, so suspension of certain rights during wartime is different....I may or may not agree, depending on the circumstance but the wartime situation is past.

manufacture, buy, and display the image of the flag. It's quite another to have it issued and displayed by the state.

License plates are government speech, as the Supreme Court recently ruled in upholding Texas' refusal to issue Confederacy-glorifying license plates. A state government is required to treat all its citizens equally, per the equal protection clause of the 14th Am. Putting out license plates that glorify the enslavement of African Americans is not treating African Americans equally with other citizens.

in the Supreme Court decision? Governments don't treat everyone equally all the time. The issue in such a case is whether the distinctions drawn violate the Equal Protection Clause and there is almost no way a case complaining that the state allowed Confederate Flag plates could provide the basis for a successful case under the Equal Protectin Clause as it has been interpreted and applied.

The basis for the Court's decision was not that the state has to treat everyone the same -- it was, if anything, exactly the opposite. It was that because the state was the speaker, it could speak however it damn well wanted. Nothing in the decision compelled Texas to refuse to issue the Confederate flag plate. The decision leaves the state free to allow it or not as it so decides. As one progressive First Amendment scholar, Geoffrey Stone of the U of Chicago law school, has pointed out, under the decision, Texas could decide tomorrow to allow "Pro LIfe" plates and refuse to authorize "Pro Choice" plates. It could allow plates that with a Pro Gun RIghts message and not allow a "Gun control" plate.

While I'm glad that the state of Texas refused to issue the Confederate flag plate and that my Governor in Virginia is taking steps to prevent such plates from being used here, I do have some qualms about the Court's decision for the reasons stated by Prof. Stone.

It was not a good decision, because of how it can and most likely will be used.

I said the Texas decision stood for the proposition that license plates are government speech. Government speech is not protected by the 1st Am. Government speech is further constrained by the 14th Am equal protection clause.

I don't deify law professors. They’re just lawyers working in academia. I don't think a state could refuse a pro-choice plate if it allowed a "pro-life" plate. I think that would violate the equal protection clause and the 1st Am. Because once the state decides it is going to allow license plates to in essence be used as a public forum on certain issues, it needs to respect all non-offensive speech equally, within the limits afforded government speech. I think displaying the Confederate Battle Flag is offensive hate speech that a state not only has a right to ban, whether or not it allows abortion plates, but arguably is required to ban since it in essense gives government sanction to the terrorizing of African Americans. IMO a state allowing Confederate plates violates the 14th Am. So sue me.

As rude as it is, you're entitled to it.

to either ban a Confederate flag license tag or require a tag with a particular message?

Equal Protection jurisprudence requires that state governments treat similarly situated citizens equally; they can't discriminate or classify based on race absent compelling state reasons (race is a "suspect classification&quot . Allowing the Confederate Battle Flag on license plates serves no legitimate, compelling state interest; it gives state sanction to the terrorizing of African Americans with the symbol of those who fought to keep African Americans slaves.

The Equal Protection Clause in my opinion is an extremely powerful, and up to now underutilized, tool for social justice. It is what is being used to bring national marriage equality. We'll see what the Supreme Court does with that shortly...

Bumper sticker, different story.

my feeling on the symbol aside, this one is political.

It's another reason why I would like to see pro 'life' plates gone too.

and pro choice, to be consistent.

Here's a link to the story: http://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/gov-mcauliffe-says-confederate-flag-will-be-removed-from-specialty/article_048a42a9-e65f-5679-a4a9-c159657388a7.html

Edit: remove errant smiley

and thanks PunkinPi for the Roanoake story!

Now if he could only get the flag down flying over 95N...I know, it's private property, but it's a freaking eye sore (at best).

It will come down to weighing the infringement on the land owner's free speech rights against the nuisance it causes. The 1st Am does not trump public decency. It does not protect "fighting words." He wouldn't be able to display a giant flag portraying a nude human body or scrawled with "FUCK YOU," for example. I think flying a Confederate Battle Flag of that size next to a major highway amounts to screeming out "fighting words" at the public. With the right jury and a good attorney, I think a successful case could be had.

I agree with you. Yesterday I mentioned to my SO that very example (displaying nudity on private property), knowing that would definitely not fly with public decency laws. It's not like some back road in the boonies (not that I condone it flying anywhere), it's 95 and it has thousands of eyeballs passing by it daily.

I can't post links on this phone for some reason. I had to copy the entire article and backspace like crazy to get it down to 4 paragraphs.

On edit - it's the same article.


Thanks PunkinPi.

I figured there was a reason you didn't post the link.

On edit: And thanks to you underpants for posting the story!

You don't see a lot of them but with 7 million people here I would have expected a larger number.

Of course we still have a giant battle flag (20'x30') welcoming people to Richmond on I-95. Privately owned property.


Aaaaand the Museum of the Confederacy downtown aaaaand all the second place trophies (monuments) around town.

racism, and some probably balk at paying an extra $25 per year for the plates.

the others. I'd heard they were moving away from the CSA nom due to the political and social climate or funding, maybe both. It's a step in the right direction at least. The giant battle flag outside Richmond is a real issue-

We drive through Appomatox battlefield going to my inlaws. I noticed this change on the county signs around the time of the big sesquicentennial.

This must be a change in the whole Civil War industry.

Had it a bit wrong. It's on the banner of the county website.

I'm kind of surprised it was so low, however I see far more Gadsden license plates around.

Lots of Teabaggers around here.

Played at Hanover Country Club a month ago. There are a series of permanent wooden signs in the area - IRS Emails, guns, and of course BENGHAZI are mentioned.

Dixie Swastika from Texas vehicle license plates. The last straw for racist anger?

It must have been a hot topic of discussion around Stormfront and KKK water coolers.

I hope the FBI has thought fit to re-assign some of their domestic ISIS supporter stings/entrapments to monitor and arrest some of the much more dangerous terrorist cells everyone knows about. No sting or entrapment required, just look for the Swastika.

I'm totally stealing that...

planned a slave rebellion that failed in Charleston in 1822. Vesey was also an early founder of the historic Emmanuel A.M.E Church, the scene of two major race crimes at least. Hard to believe that Roof was unaware of this significance especially given the amount of material he obtained from major white supremacist groups like the CCC and Northwest Front with HQ in Seattle that the FBI is examining. Also agree that the Texas SCOTUS decision Re license plates could have been a trigger and influence.

Interesting that there are four Supreme Court Justices who have no problem with the Confederate Flag - call out the racists.

haters (including Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor).

While the outcome of the Texas license plate case doesn't bother me, the legal reasoning behind it is hardly airtight.

"the legal reasoning behind it is hardly airtight..."

What then are the specific, objective and relevant legal fallacies you perceive in the ruling?

Stone, by the way, is a former clerk for Justice Brennan and sits on the board of the American Constitution Society and the ACLU. I would bet that more times than not, he's in agreement with the Ginsburg/Sotomayor/Kagan/Breyer wing of the court. But as he points out, there are some very troubling implications in the Court's decision that Texas can refuse to issue license plates with messages that it deems offensive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/texas-license-plates-the_b_7628368.html

is that if the SC ledge had taken that rag to half staff along with the US and SC flags, it would have amounted to a news blip and maybe a Faux motor mouth's hissy.

But no, they had to push it to the point where Wal-Mart, of all things, thinks their source of "cultural pride" is ugly and tacky.

Way to go, boys and girls. You pissed off everybody and you certainly deserve it.

The built in legislative protection blew up in their face.

It's amazing how a normal, rationale person of the same species would mate with them and make more of them. Or maybe not.

a big distraction from the real issue, guns. That's why so many in the GOP are jumping on this bandwagon. Keeps the focus off of guns.

The 2nd amendment CLEARLY states guns are only a right within a well regulated militia.

Especially when they have a badge.

Especially here, where that group knows way more about it than I do.

But you are right that if we were to enforce our 2nd amendment as written, and if every single gun in this country was moved to a well regulated militia, then only a handful of police would need them.

The TENS of MILLIONS of vicious racist and Gay hating assholes, aka teaparty/cons, would still want to kill people different from them, but it would be harder to do.

The guns are the important thing, and I do believe they are trying to get everyone to use up their outrage on the flag.

Last edited Tue Jun 23, 2015, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

a war on history or something that would indicate and insult to the soldiers who fought in the civil war or something that would indicate white without saying it.

Jesus carrying an AK-47 in one arm, a bible in the other and wrapped in the Confederate flag.

Stars and bars:






Somehow I don't think that's the image they banned.

It is amazing how controversial confederate flags are when no one... detractors, supporters....reporters.... seem to know anything about them.

….on in education in southern schools, that all these southerners find "pride in tradition" in this swastika equivalent symbol?

Why aren't they ashamed or at least grateful that it's in the past? It would be like Germans longing for their "romantic nazi past".

There is something seriously corrupt in the history southern schools are teaching their kids.