The plate was rejected, and today, the U.S. Supreme Court hears argument on whether that rejection violated the First Amendment.
"The plaintiffs have every right to festoon their cars with bumper stickers or other images that display the Confederate battle flag," says former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell. "But they can't compel the state of Texas to propagate the Confederate battle flag by displaying it on state-issued license plates."Lyle Denniston explains the procedure in Texas, which empowers a state board to reject plates proposed by non-profit groups if the message "might be offensive to any member of the public." Obviously, the proposed image offends some members of the public. The key constitutional law case seems to be Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, which allowed the government to refuse to include a donated monument in a park that had other donated monuments. (The rejected monument expressed religious beliefs and the park already had a 10 Commandments monument.) There's also a license plate case:
The Sons of Confederate Veterans reply that Texas, by statute, has a policy of honoring their forebears. Specifically, there is a state holiday honoring Confederate veterans. "The lawyers working on this case get Confederate Heroes Day off," says R. James George, Jr., the lawyer representing the Confederate veterans group....
Beyond that, George contends that the Constitution does not allow the government to ban certain speech simply because it's offensive. That's a proposition that former Texas Solicitor General Mitchell rejects when the speaker is the state.
In the famous decision in 1977 in Wooley v. Maynard, the Supreme Court treated license plate messages as a form of private speech on private property, but did not rule exactly that. Presuming it to be private speech, the Court said motorists could not be compelled to carry New Hampshire’s preferred message, the state motto, “Live Free or Die.” That mandate was challenged by a driver of the Jehovah’s Witness faith.The Supreme Court is hearing the case that arose out of Texas, but there is a second case out there, from North Carolina, where the state — which has a pro-life specialty plate — rejected a pro-choice plate.
As the [Texas] agency in sole charge of the program, the filing went on, the state agency has authority to disassociate itself from messages, symbols or viewpoints that it does not want to convey or promote. It could not be compelled by the First Amendment, the agency said by way of illustration, to allow a swastika, a sacrilege, or an expression of overt racism, because that would have the state’s imprimatur and make it the state’s own message. Indeed, it argued, motorists want expressions on their license plates precisely because that gives their message the state’s “seal of approval.”The state has an interest, but it could be met by not having a specialty license plate program at all. I'm saying that even though I like states making money from something that people seem to enjoy buying.
In arguing that it did not engage in viewpoint bias by rejecting the Confederate flag display, the state agency contended that it would have done so only if had chosen to issue a specialty plate with the contradictory message of denouncing or demeaning the Confederacy or the Sons of Confederate Veterans. It simply has taken no position on such expression, it contended.I'd say there's a big difference between the state's slapping a message on your car and forcing you to drive around with it everywhere and and the state's denying you the option to get a message you like connected to the state's approval.
The brief on the merits of the Texas chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans... dwelled primarily upon the argument that specialty license plates — when opened by a state to message choices by drivers — do nothing more than express private views or tastes.
Relying on an expansive reading of the Court’s precedent in Wooley v. Maynard, the organization essentially contended that the Court has already settled the debate over whose message license plates express. When the government wants to convey its own messages, the brief said, it creates more enduring expressions like public monuments, not the mobile platform of an auto or truck.
Posts
134 comments:
This may make me unpopular with my more Southern friends, but the symbol of a defeated insurgency does not belong on license plates or state flags.
The state should have a disclaimer at the bottom of the plate, "The state of Texas makes no endorsement, express or implied, of the material on this plate. We just put it there to make money."
The Day They Drove Old Dixie around.
I'm inclined to agree with the State on this one--it seems more a matter of what the state will and won't choose to endorse rather than a matter of restricting speech.
Besides, the confederacy was centered around one chief thing--rebellion against the Union. You can argue that they had a right to rebel, or that their cause for rebelling was just, but to expect the state or federal government to support or endorse a symbol of an illegal rebellion is pretty absurd.
If this is really about "southern pride" or "honoring ancestors" then there should be another symbol to get that point across. Surely we aren't so tone deaf that we don't see a flag of rebellion as a problem for the state?
It's a culture with some positive features too, is why.
Taking offense is not a feature, it's a bug.
""might be offensive to any member of the public." "
Is there anything at all that won't offend one member of the public?
Myself, if I saw a "Hello Kitty" license plate I would be overcome by a combination of whimsy and road rage.
I am Laslo.
What EMD said.
This may make me unpopular with my more Southern friends, but the symbol of a defeated insurgency does not belong on license plates or state flags.
I dont' have an issue with the state. I think license plates should be mostly non-confrontational and inoffensive.
A many of the state flags are some combination of stars, stripes, red, white and blue, which is what the confederate flag is. If it were flag out the confederate flag, I might object, but if it just resembles it in some way, well, all of those red white and blue flags have similar elements?
If this is really about "southern pride" or "honoring ancestors" then there should be another symbol to get that point across.
Camo.
Most southerners don't wave around the confederate flag anyway (and the ones that do are generally low class), but it's really not for someone outside the south to choose a symbol.
This why specialty license plates should not be allowed. Government is all about "one size fits all". License plates should be uniform, boring and serve only the purpose of identifying a vehicle.
Of course, the money from specialty plates is irresistible to politicians.
Up here in Seattle we could have a license plate commemorating 'The Great Serial Killers of the Northwest.' Because we have had a lot of them.
The plate I am picturing would look great on a white van with no windows in the back.
I am Laslo.
Maybe everybody would be a winner if Texas took the advice of modern day cons by following the doctrine of accurate naming.
Text for under the flag on the license plates: Radical Christian Terrorists.
Unlikely as it may be, if Iraq ever survives as a single, non-terrorist dominated nation, maybe a hundred years from now they'll be pumping out ISIS plates to honor their so-called heritage.
Damn. Look at all the pussies dodging the issue!
Sure, you may personally believe a CSA symbol "doesn't belong on a license plate." But no one is making you put it there and obviously other people feel differently.
At issue is whether the state can prohibit this form of expression on the grounds that others may take offense. If the 1st Amendment doesn't protect unpopular or potentially offensive speech it's not much of a First Amendment at all, is it?
If the state can deny this program to a group of citizens based solely on an objection to content as opposed to 'time, place and manner' what's next? Banning "choose life" plates? Banning pro life tshirts from municipal buildings? Banning "god hates fags" t shirts? How about restricting ad buys from certain groups? Muslims often buy ads on city busses. If the city can refuse this group's money and not provide plates, then why can't they refuse a Muslim group a bus ad?
If this group met the criteria in place, I say, print the plates. Err on the side of expression, not repression.
I'd call them "Democrat Heritage" plates, though.
A many of the state flags are some combination of stars, stripes, red, white and blue, which is what the confederate flag is. If it were flag out the confederate flag, I might object, but if it just resembles it in some way, well, all of those red white and blue flags have similar elements?
This doesn't fly to me. It' easy to see which ones are derived from the Confederate flag and which are not.
"This may make me unpopular with my more Southern friends, but the symbol of a defeated insurgency does not belong on license plates or state flags."
Absolutely correct.
So if the plaintiffs win, everyone gets a shot at their own designer license plate?
There goes the money making part.
(I wonder if they really make any money on it now.)
Soon: the "Coexist" license plate, on Prius cars everywhere.
I am Laslo.
So... Put Cook down in the "anti-choice" column. Shocking.
The state is on thin ice once it starts regulating viewpoints and the content of messages.
That said, seems these "Sons of Confederate Veterans" need to come to terms with the fact that their forebears were not only on the wrong side of history, but were just plain wrong.
The production of personalized plates is just a money machine for state governments. IMAO, political statements belong on bumper stickers not license plates.
Too late.
At issue is whether the state can prohibit this form of expression on the grounds that others may take offense.
Oh, I'm not offended. At all.
If you want to fly your stars-and-bars over the Statehouse, you should've fucking won the war.
As if a neck tattoo ain't enough.
This isn't a vanity plate, it's a specialty plate, an important difference from a "whose speech" standpoint. A government-issued license plate template implies government endorsement. They should be able to say no to any template they don't want to issue, just as the Post Office says no to any stamp they don't want to issue.
Every time specialty plates come up, I'm reminded of a minor controversy in Florida a couple decades ago when they were relatively new and proliferating. The head of the State Highway patrol warned that with literally dozens of official license plate types, police could not easily distinguish real plates from fake. At the same time, a state legislator decided to simplify the whole process by introducing a bill making the etch-a-sketch the official state license plate.
If you want to fly your stars-and-bars over the Statehouse, you should've fucking won the war.
It's not over. The South will rise again.
"Most southerners don't wave around the confederate flag anyway (and the ones that do are generally low class), but it's really not for someone outside the south to choose a symbol."
It's up to whoever wants to use the symbol to choose what symbol to use--but if you choose to use confederate symbols people will make assumptions about what you really mean. If you want to convey that you support secession and rebellion--particularly the one that was precipitated by a defense of slavery--then the rebel battle flag is a good one. If you want to convey simply that you're proud of the South, it may be a good idea to find another symbol.
Camo is pretty good.
This doesn't fly to me. It' easy to see which ones are derived from the Confederate flag and which are not.
Derived...The confederate flag is also 'derived' from the US flag. Same color scheme. Same symbols. Etc. So they're all similar.
The main legal issue seems to be that the state is selling these things. They generally only sell a limited number of version of the plates, so they are already not going to make everything. I'm not sure where I fall on the legal issue, I guess we'll see what the courts rule.
"As God is my witness, my license plate will never be hungry again."
I am Laslo.
1. What does "flying it over the State House" have to do with it? We're not talking about flying it over the State House. We're talking about displaying it on the back of a privately-owned vehicle.
2. That is not the "Stars and Bars."
Texas, your dilemma is solved.
I am Laslo.
"That said, seems these "Sons of Confederate Veterans" need to come to terms with the fact that their forebears were not only on the wrong side of history, but were just plain wrong."
That's between them and their forbears. Why should the state have an opinion on whether or not your ancestors were good people? There were plenty of brave, honorable Confederate soldiers, just as more recently there were plenty of brave, honorable Japanese, Italian, and even German and Vietnamese soldiers. Which side of history they were on is a different issue entirely.
We already have a well-established legal doctrine for cases like this: government can regulate the time, place and manner of expression. It cannot pick and choose on the basis of content.
Nazi Germany didn't win the war, either. But if they get the right permits, members of the American Nazi Party have the right to march in Chicago along with everyone else.
Where they damn well belong!
How about a specialty plate with the Mexican flag and a "¡TodavÃa México!" slogan?
It looks like only five characters are allowed. How the hell then do you abbreviate "Mandingo"?
I am Laslo.
I could definitely see a market for that one.
2. That is not the "Stars and Bars."
I know. I just don't know what the actual Confederate flag is called.
There were plenty of brave, honorable Confederate soldiers, just as more recently there were plenty of brave, honorable Japanese, Italian, and even German and Vietnamese soldiers. Which side of history they were on is a different issue entirely.
I think that's a bit apples-to-oranges. The Nazis were not an American insurgency.
...on the other hand, what if they replaced the flag symbol with a portrait of, say, Robert E. Lee?
"Absolutely correct."
It's amusing that Cook does not say, "I agree." He must rule ex cathedra that the statement is "correct."
"ex cathedra" LOL!!
"ex cathedra" LOL!!
What Boba Fett said.
Can I spike this B.S. in New Mexico by filing suit claiming that plates promoting that A&M institution down south is offensive to me?
How about a specialty plate with the Mexican flag and a "¡TodavÃa México!" slogan?
If we're going to have these kinds of message plates, I'm fine with it, if it's fully funded by the sponsoring group. What part of the First Amendment is not clear to you?
Maybe the state could impose an "English Only" message on any text, which would be content neutral and go only to 'time, place and manner.'
Is Jason really saying people should be allowed to have "God Hates Fags" or a Nazi Swastika or a picture of bare titties or ANYTHING AT ALL on their state-issued license plate, or is he anti-choice?
I do not think there is any plate that is not offensive to somebody.
In fact, for me, it is offensive that there are different plate designs issued by the same state.
Either "One state, one plate" or let her rip; everyone can have his or her own plate.
garage: "It's not over. The South will rise again."
"..will rise again."?
It was argued that after Billy Jeff's election that the South had risen again as evidenced by the number of southern politicians elected to the Presidency along with the relatively robust economic growth and corporate shift to the south.
Plus, since the population shift back to the south from the north has been going on steadily for the last 40 years you could argue the south will rise again thanks to the influx of "yankees", and I include "west coast yankees" in that.
madisonfella: "Is Jason really saying people should be allowed to have "God Hates Fags" or a Nazi Swastika or a picture of bare titties or ANYTHING AT ALL on their state-issued license plate, or is he anti-choice?"
Channeling Kevin Kline in "A Fish Called Wanda" and Laslo Spatula, what was that 3rd choice again?
Oh, and I believe the correct designation for the "Confederate flag" is CSA Naval Standard #2.
If this is really about "southern pride" or "honoring ancestors" then there should be another symbol to get that point across.
There is. And the Sons of Confederate Veterans is (are?) actually using it. The image on the plate is not a likeness of any flag that ever stood for any political entity. (Those would be primarily the 'Stars and Bars' or "Stainless Banner" flags that actually were the flag of the the CSA.
The image on the plate, rather, is a likeness of the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. That was Lee's army, as opposed to the Army of Tennessee. The flag stood for that army and the troops in it, alone.
The adoption of that flag over other possible flags by the SCV and similar groups is deliberate: The intent is to honor the soldiers in the Army rather than their political masters in Richmond.
So that idea is baked into the cake already.
I mean, "Camo?" Who wore "camo" in the Civil War? The typical Confederate where he had any kind of uniform was probably doing his best to die his clothes butternut in a bucket.
If the south does rise again it will be nice for the invading northern armies as the members will have a chance to visit and stay with so many of their relatives while on the march down south.
Nope. It's not the Naval Ensign. The design on the plate is square for a reason. It's the ANV flag.
"Nazi Germany didn't win the war, either. But if they get the right permits, members of the American Nazi Party have the right to march in Chicago along with everyone else."
But does the Nazi party have a right to have the state offer a vanity plate with a swastika? Or to have the USPS put out a stamp with Hitler on it? The government has a right to not (even implicitly) endorse certain messages.
I agree that the standard of "this can be offensive to someone" is too broad, after all some nuts are likely offended by the American flag (and it's time someone went America all over their asses!). But the state should be able to determine that some subjects are too controversial to endorse, or otherwise carry a message the state would find antithetical to its mission.
But the key here is that this isn't so much curtailing a party's freedom of expression so much as refusing to provide a government endorsement. Nothing stops you from having a swastika on your envelope or putting a Nazi bumper sticker on your car.
"Why should we as Texas want to be reminded of a legalized system of involuntary servitude, dehumanization, rape, mass murder?"
Are we really going to be tearing down the mosques?
Is Jason really saying people should be allowed to have "God Hates Fags" or a Nazi Swastika or a picture of bare titties or ANYTHING AT ALL on their state-issued license plate, or is he anti-choice?
DID I STUTTER, SHITHEAD?
Brando: "I agree that the standard of "this can be offensive to someone" is too broad, after all some nuts are likely offended by the American flag (and it's time someone went America all over their asses!)"
Channeling Marty Feldman in "Young Frankenstein": Too Late
Thanks UC Irvine!
Jason: "I mean, "Camo?" Who wore "camo" in the Civil War?"
Reminds me of the joke: Who was the best spy ever?
....we'll never know.
But does the Nazi party have a right to have the state offer a vanity plate with a swastika?
The have precisely the same right to a vanity plate of their own as the Audobon Society, the Save the Whales Crowd, "Choose Life" and Citizens for Immediate Nuclear War. Not a whit more or less.
I for one, would like to know who the Nazis in my community are.
This is why we can't have nice things. There's no legal definition of "dickish".
So all the specialty plates requested by citizens have to go. Because someone will ask for something that is dickish and then will scream "viewpoint discrimination".
Insert your own value of "dickish". You may not think a Confederate flag is dickish; I may or may not agree with you. But you will find SOMETHING to be dickish and you will have no legal recourse against it when it's proposed for a specialty plate.
The State of Texas should revoke all of them and offer a selection of 5 - 10 boring ones, approved by a majority of the legislature.
DID I STUTTER, SHITHEAD?
I don't understand why you felt the need for this outburst. Did my question offend you or are you just always this angry?
Personally, I don't think the gov't should be endorsing the Nazis but that doesn't make me anti-free speech.
Just to be clear about one detail tho: Do you consider yourself a conservative, a liberal, or something else?
Hitchens on freedom of expression:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU
"The image on the plate, rather, is a likeness of the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. That was Lee's army, as opposed to the Army of Tennessee. The flag stood for that army and the troops in it, alone."
I know the flag in question (the one most people recognize) is not the official flag of the confederacy but rather the battle flag of its armies--but the point is it was still the flag that a major army of rebellion fought under (and is far more recognized as a confederate flag than the actual stars and bars).
For those who use it to convey "southern pride", is that really what "southern pride" is all about--fighting against the U.S. to break away from it? If that's the key element of southernness, then I suppose so--but then understand why those who consider such rebellion treasonous would have a problem with it.
I prefer to think of "southernness" in terms of the region's culture, people, food and landscapes--and while its history (as with all U.S. history) had shameful moments, it also featured great contributions to what makes the country as a whole great. But picking a symbol inextricably linked to one of the most regrettable and terrible parts of American history seems an odd way to celebrate the rest of it.
madisonfella: "Personally, I don't think the gov't should be endorsing the Nazis but that doesn't make me anti-free speech."
Does allowing a vanity plate message under the umbrella of free speech truly constitute "endorsement" by the Gov't?
"Jason: "I mean, "Camo?" Who wore "camo" in the Civil War?""
I'd suggest the "butternut" uniforms of the Rebs counted as camo for its time!
Certainly beat the Union dress code--whose idea was it to wear dark blue wool while fighting in the South in the summer? It's not like there were a lot of dark blue trees and fields to hide in.
"Does allowing a vanity plate message under the umbrella of free speech truly constitute "endorsement" by the Gov't?"
That's the key question here--arguably under the standards of "any group getting a certain number of signatures can have a plate available for purchase" seems to not endorse any group. However, it's still putting a group's content on an official state manufactured plate. It's not unreasonable to read that as an endorsement (similar to a USPS issued postage stamp).
On an unrelated note, don't these "custom vanity" plates create problems for law enforcement? With each state having several different designed plates it certainly would be harder to identify which state's plate you're looking at from a distance.
Brando: "For those who use it to convey "southern pride", is that really what "southern pride" is all about--fighting against the U.S. to break away from it? If that's the key element of southernness, then I suppose so--but then understand why those who consider such rebellion treasonous would have a problem with it"
I once spoke to a group of the Sons of Confederacy who had a booth set up at a carnival/fair on Lookout Mountain on the GA side. I was wearing a "Fly Navy" t-shirt (suck it Air Force) and they engaged me in conversation. I actually asked them what they stood for and they were completely focused on recognition of the courage and sacrifice of their relatives who had fought.
It seemed to me that they felt that huge swaths of their family tree had been ruled "out of bounds" and that they were trying to recover that to a degree.
When they asked where my family had come from they were not disturbed at all to hear Pennsylvania and New Jersey. They said they were often surprised at how many "northerners" were receptive to the message of honoring family members who had come before.
Brando: "However, it's still putting a group's content on an official state manufactured plate. It's not unreasonable to read that as an endorsement (similar to a USPS issued postage stamp)."
Wasn't this the same question involved in the litigation surrounding whether or not gov't funds could be used for vouchers in private religious schools?
Jason: "I for one, would like to know who the Nazis in my community are."
I for one was shocked that Henry Gibson was found to be a member in Illinois.
I think everyone wold ahve to admit there are some possible license plates symbols that are just no good, and some would encourage or justify, or seem to some people to encourage or sjustify overthrowing the government, or crime or terrorism..
And corporations are also "persons." Think of the cash that could be collected by selling commercial advertising space on the auto license plates!
And it would be "money from home!" No need to justify what it is used for to the legislature!
It is possible to go further and say that a Confederate flag is almost like a burning cross or a swastika. It's not like that, but it may be the same category of object.
There are many many people who do not think it was a glorious "lost cause."
@Jason
But everybody thinks it was the flag of the Confederacy rather than just of an important part of the Confederate Army. You never see any other flag and it still is very distinctive.
""The image on the plate, rather, is a likeness of the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. That was Lee's army"
Interesting! I didn't know that.
Lee after the war encouraged the soldiers to go back home and be good citizens and not fight a guerilla war.
Loser flags, what about "Remember the Alamo"? In what lexicon is Alamo synonymous with "victory"? Do any commemorative license plates in TX refer to the Alamo?
Confederate flag, I remember 40 years ago seeing it in various souvenir shops near the Great Smoky Mtns.; when did it become offensive? If it has always been offensive, I walk it back, but if the offensive nature has developed in the last, say, 20 years then pfft, since the flag does not actually represent all that bad stuff outside the mind of the offended, you've just made up the offensive nature and need to suck it up.
It is possible to go further and say that a Confederate flag is almost like a burning cross or a swastika.
Ok, that's absolutely ridiculous. But let's take your assertion at face value. (It's a big "almost" in any case).
Show me in the First Amendment where Swastikas and burning crosses are exempt from protection.
Be specific.
Jason is the kind of guy who yells "Fire!!" in the movie theater and screams cuss words at the elementary-school kids walking down the sidewalk.
Because, FREE SPEECH!!
I prefer to think of "southernness" in terms of the region's culture, people, food and landscapes--and while its history (as with all U.S. history) had shameful moments, it also featured great contributions to what makes the country as a whole great.
I think the Civil war and the reconstruction that followed is a part of the history of the south and has shaped its culture. Just as much as the mix of backgrounds of the people who came here, the food, the heat, etc.. It has also shaped the way the rest of the country treats the south and southerners.
The camo thing was kind of a joke.
Brando, I take it you are not southern at all?
I actually asked them what they stood for and they were completely focused on recognition of the courage and sacrifice of their relatives who had fought.
Sons and Daughters of the confederacy as far as I know are functionally no different from DAR. You trace your roots, see what your ancestors were doing in the war and collect badges or something. My grandmother was in DAR. My cousin is in DoC (I dont' actually know if that's an appropriate acronym). These aren't hate groups, they are historical and family centered.
But everybody thinks it was the flag of the Confederacy rather than just of an important part of the Confederate Army.
Everybody? You must surround yourself with some historically illiterate people.
At any rate, who cares what "everybody" who's not a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans thinks it is? We're going to a priori limit expression because other ignorant people don't know what the symbol represents?
You never see any other flag and it still is very distinctive.
Wow! It's almost as if the groups displaying CSA imagery are more interested in honoring their late family members who fought bravely in its armies than in honoring Jefferson Davis and slavery!
Why, if I didn't know better, it seems as though you were imposing your own prejudices on these groups as racist and secessionist based on your ignorance of the symbology rather than actually understanding something about the groups in question!
I think everyone wold ahve to admit there are some possible license plates symbols that are just no good, and some would encourage or justify, or seem to some people to encourage or sjustify overthrowing the government, or crime or terrorism..
Mr. President, I am happy to report that the threat of a Sons of Confederate Veterans-led insurgency is under control. Please focus your attention on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"Brando, I take it you are not southern at all?"
Nope--I was born in Georgia but raised up north. I don't have a dog in the "Civil War" fight because my ancestors didn't arrive until after that was over.
I get that the Civil War (and Reconstruction) are a key part of southern history, and shaped the south--but there's a difference between understanding and coping with that history, versus wearing (or flying) the symbol of rebellion. The latter certainly gives the impression of support for rebellion, and I gather that most people who display the flag don't actually support rebellion if push came to shove.
"I actually asked them what they stood for and they were completely focused on recognition of the courage and sacrifice of their relatives who had fought."
I gather that's the main reason people display confederate flags--a connection to ancestors, or regional pride. Behind that would be biker gangs showing how rebellious they are, and then hate groups trying to piss off black people. Then you have southern governors in the '60s trying to scare up easy votes by flying them over the state house to piss of JFK and LBJ.
Being a northerner, I can't really think of an equivalent for me wanting to support ancestors who fought honorably but for a bad cause. But I imagine I'd want to do so in a way that didn't imply I supported the actual cause they fought for.
What Unknown said above.
60 years ago, the bands in the EM clubs would play "Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "Dixie" alternately, and it was all in fun and part of the entertainment. No one fought over it.
And that was in dense crowds of young men all full of beer and testosterone.
Drago:
"I once spoke to a group of the Sons of Confederacy who had a booth set up at a carnival/fair on Lookout Mountain on the GA side.
I encountered a family of gorillas emerging from the mist - led by an alpha male, with several females and a number of younger apes.
I was wearing a "Fly Navy" t-shirt (suck it Air Force) and they engaged me in conversation."
Wary at first, they eventually discerned I posed no threat, and gradually became accustomed to my presence. Eventually, I gained their trust to the extent that it was possible to attempt some rudimentary communication with them.
I actually asked them what they stood for and they were completely focused on recognition of the courage and sacrifice of their relatives who had fought.
You were able to discern that from their grunting, gesturing, brachiating and crude hand gestures? It's almost as if they are human!
When they asked where my family had come from they were not disturbed at all to hear Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
EGADS!!! THE DEUCE YOU SAY!!!
Being a northerner, I can't really think of an equivalent for me wanting to support ancestors who fought honorably but for a bad cause.
Sheridan's genocidal campaigns in the Indian Wars. O.O. Howard's pursuit of Chief Joseph. Custer's atrocities.
I gather that's the main reason people display confederate flags--a connection to ancestors, or regional pride. Behind that would be biker gangs showing how rebellious they are, and then hate groups trying to piss off black people. Then you have southern governors in the '60s trying to scare up easy votes by flying them over the state house to piss of JFK and LBJ.
You left out liberal agent provocateurs infiltrating Tea Party rallies and Republican candidate events under false flag operations.
And, oh yes; less than a decade after Truman rescinded Wilson's segregation of the armed forces, and well before the "freedom rides," we were all getting along just fine in the army - white, brown, black, red, yellow, you name it.
I encountered a family of gorillas emerging from the mist
Ha!
the symbol of rebellion
You just described it as the symbol of rebellion and you can't understand why that might appeal? People love rebellions! And lost causes. And a civilization, gone, with the wind...da na na na. da na na na. Da na! na na na...na. Da na! Na na...
The main thing was, as draftees, were all in this soup together.
"Sheridan's genocidal campaigns in the Indian Wars. O.O. Howard's pursuit of Chief Joseph. Custer's atrocities."
My ancestors didn't get here or enlist in the U.S. armed forces until the 20th Century, but let's say they did--the equivalent here would be my displaying a flag specifically symbolizing Custer's campaign against the Indians. I could argue that I sincerely meant to honor my ancestors who fought bravely with Custer (as many of his troopers surely did) but American Indians (or anyone who didn't care much for Custer's mass murderings) would understandably think I supported that sort of thing too.
That's the trouble with symbols--they can mean something to the viewer as well as the displayer.
Jason @3/23/15, 11:39 AM
I'm still laughing.
"You just described it as the symbol of rebellion and you can't understand why that might appeal? People love rebellions! And lost causes. And a civilization, gone, with the wind...da na na na. da na na na. Da na! na na na...na. Da na! Na na..."
Oh, I understand rebellion appeals all right! Just like we all love the antihero, the bad boy, who plays by his own rules--men want to be him, women want to change him!
So if Vivian Leigh, an Englishwoman, could do a southern accent for that film, why couldn't Clark Gable? The whole time I'm thinking he was a secret Northern spy but nope, he's just a shrewd, cynical southern businessman.
The case seems to revolve around whether the "speaker" on a license plate is the state or the vehicle owner.
Since any optional messages that may be on a license plate are not there to meet the state's purposes in issuing and requiring the plates (that is, vehicle registration and identification), and since the plates (unlike a government building or park) are owned by the vehicle owner and not the state, it's hard to argue that the speaker is the state and not the vehicle owner.
If so, then whether or not this symbol is offensive seems entirely beside the point, as the state simply has no legitimate purpose in attempting to distinguish between "offensive" (prohibited) and inoffensive (permitted) speech.
If the State allows specialized plates for other dubious "causes" I don't see why trumpeting your forebearers' actions should be axed.
Of course, I don't have specialized plates. What a waste of money!
You can be proud of your Ancestors (recognizing it's absolutely no reflection on you), but you have to recognize just exactly what they were fighting for. (Says the great-great-grandson of a Lieutenant, then Captain, then Major, then Colonel in the Union Army).
Why? Painting over the past allows us to forget it. I was going to say "whitewash", but black paint works just as well.
Give them plate.
Give everybody plate.
" But the state should be able to determine that some subjects are too controversial to endorse, or otherwise carry a message the state would find antithetical to its mission."
Thank God there is nothing like a First Amendment to muck up that kind of clear thinking. Otherwise some bigot will develop a Washington Redskins plate. Oh the horror.
While I'm a born and raised Texican.. if I am not mistaken the South lost the war... and with good reason.
While most folk did not own slaves(they were expensive) it was involuntary servitude and while they normally were treated about as well as any slave can expect to be treated, they could be killed at whim, just like livestock.
Our whole constitution was based on FREEDOM. "Free men own guns, slaves don't" kind of thing.
So isn't it time to ditch the 'stars and bars'?
We can honor the Southern culture without a Southern battleflag used in a war to keep slaves.
Oh, and if we can have a battleflag used by those wanting to keep slaves, why can't the plates have ISIS flags?
Or Nazi flags, or sickle and hammer flags (communist.)
The WAR of NORTHERN AGGRESSION is over folks, ditch the stars and bars.
We could just use the old TEXAS flag BEFORE the confederacy.
You know the LONE STAR STATE. Or even the one we used before annexation. Yep same LONE STAR STATE.
Simple, no?
As I've recommended a new symbol for southern pride that does not happen to also be the symbol of the most destructive rebellion our country has ever faced, I'll take it upon myself to come up with suggestions for new "regional flags" (because other regions will get jealous if they don't get one too):
1) The South. A flag featuring Gregg Allman shooting an alligator while eating fried chicken and holding Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury."
2) New England. A flag featuring a surly townie holding a lobster, wearing a Red Sox hat, and shooting a New Yorker who just came to look at the fall leaves. (These all feature shooting because these aren't flags for France)
3) Pacific Northwest. A grungy flannel man drinking a microbrew, carrying a bag of locally grown kelp and shooting a deer just to prevent overpopulation.
4) Midwest. Orville Redenbacher milking a cow, holding a Sears Roebuck catalogue and shooting a rival Chicago gangmember.
I thought he was describing the pro-choice system established by the liberal state. But, alas, no. He must feel pride in the progressive state of selective exclusion, elective abortion, redistributive change, etc.
Crap, I had a post about Clark Gable but it was eaten. Basically, Yankees suck at southern accents. But he was Clark Gable, and no one else was getting that role. They didn't even consider another actor.
The South. A flag featuring Gregg Allman shooting an alligator while eating fried chicken and holding Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury."
Yeah, that's why no one else gets to pick a symbol. I'm surprised you didn't have someone barefooted. Pfft.
"Yeah, that's why no one else gets to pick a symbol. I'm surprised you didn't have someone barefooted. Pfft."
Hey! I had him holding a book! That comes off far better than the New Englander.
Brando: Being a northerner, I can't really think of an equivalent for me wanting to support ancestors who fought honorably but for a bad cause. But I imagine I'd want to do so in a way that didn't imply I supported the actual cause they fought for.
Well that's just it, Brando. It's not about you.
Freedom of expression.
Too many of us are unclear on the concept.
their forebears were not only on the wrong side of history, but were just plain wrong
If we're talking about slavery? Yes. If we're talking about whether states (or a group of states) can secede? No, they weren't wrong.
"Well that's just it, Brando. It's not about you."
That's right, it's not--but I'm also not the one who gets huffy when people make assumptions based on what symbols I choose to display, either.
"If we're talking about slavery? Yes. If we're talking about whether states (or a group of states) can secede? No, they weren't wrong."
Has that been settled? Obviously, as a military matter, it was settled, but while the Constitution says plenty about how a state can JOIN the union it doesn't address whether or how a state can leave. Interestingly, after the war when the Republicans passed three amendments dealing with the ending of slavery, they didn't pass anything to address whether a state could secede--maybe they thought that the war made the issue moot as no one would try it again.
However, it's not too hard to imagine a case where the vast majority of the people of one state feel so oppressed by the federal government that they want to secede. What should the standard be? What would be justified in allowing a state to leave the union?
JMHO, but the fact that the state actually issues the plate, and forces you to use it if you own a vehicle, makes it so that any message on that plate at least seems to be endorsed by the state. Although I agree that that view also applies to "save the whales" and "Children, just love them" (like we have in Michigan.
That said? No viewpoint or vanity license plates should be issued at all. If you want to put a "Sons of the Confederacy" bumper sticker on your own car, you should be able to.
Brando - all your points and questions are fair, and unfortunately I have no real answers for any of them. From a moral view, I believe that a state SHOULD be able to leave if it so chooses.
No viewpoint or vanity license plates should be issued at all.
I won't pay for them, but I love the pretty ones. Not the 'viewpoint' ones which are boring, but the game and fish/ducks unlimited ones. And the 'go hogs' ones. If I still lived in VA I might consider getting one my university.
"From a moral view, I believe that a state SHOULD be able to leave if it so chooses."
I recall a conversation with a classmate (a New Yorker) once about it, and at the time my opinion was "of course not, if a state can secede when it wants the union dissolves and we're no longer a country" and he'd asked if I could imagine a situation where the federal government took action oppressive enough to a particular state that the state really had no choice but to leave (like a spouse in a bad enough marriage). I had to agree that such a thing could come about--say, if the Feds shut down an industry most of your state's residents depend on simply to benefit the other 49.
That being the case, I don't know what constitutes a "state" seceding--in the Civil War, it came down to the legislature deciding, but in Kentucky and TN the governors and legislators were at odds, and in VA the western part of the state was so opposed to secession they seceded from the state to stay in the federal union. If a state can secede, do parts within the state have a choice?
I suppose Lincoln was troubled enough by these quandries he just said "screw it" and sent in the troops.
Brando: As I've recommended a new symbol for southern pride that does not happen to also be the symbol of the most destructive rebellion our country has ever faced...
No, it's not "the symbol" of the Civil War, not to anyone who isn't trying to shoehorn that immense, nation-forming tragedy into some preferred "presentist" narrative.
As you say, you had "no dog in the fight", so I don't know why you're so insistent on dictating to those who did how they should or should not feel about it, or how they should or should not relate to its symbols, or, for God's sake, their own bloody ancestors.
At any rate, as Hagar and Unknown have pointed out, this getting bent out of shape about Confederate symbols is a relatively new thing. Very little of it is the perfectly reasonable and understandable objection of black Americans to having these symbols used in official governmental capacity. It most certainly is not a historical overhang from festering, never-healed blue-gray animosities. In fact, it's not about the Civil War at all, but about our bright shiny new-fangled civic divisions. Fifty years ago ordinary Yankees and Southrons didn't talk about the Civil War, the men who fought it, and each other, like this.
Actually judging from 50 year old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons, Americans had a much better sense of humor about it!
"We don't understand it. Better ban it."
--Althouse readers
If you allow one kind of vanity place, you must allow all or it abridges freedom of speech. Ban all commemorative plates. Have only 3 classes of plates.
1. Non-commercial vehicles
2. Commercial vehicles
3. Government vehicles.
Just the name of the state and a state motto.
If you have something to say, buy a license plate frame or a bumper sticker.
"No, it's not "the symbol" of the Civil War, not to anyone who isn't trying to shoehorn that immense, nation-forming tragedy into some preferred "presentist" narrative."
I have to respectfully disagree with that--while the "stars and bars" flag is more the official flag of the confederacy, the battle flag is quite simply better known and widely identified with the southern armies. This is largely because the "stars and bars" bears some resemblence to old U.S. flags, which is also the reason the south adopted the better known St. Andrew cross flag (so it'd be more distinguishable on the battlefield from the U.S. flag). If there is a better known symbol for the confederacy, I'd be interested to know what that is.
"As you say, you had "no dog in the fight", so I don't know why you're so insistent on dictating to those who did how they should or should not feel about it, or how they should or should not relate to its symbols, or, for God's sake, their own bloody ancestors."
Sheesh, "dictating" how people should feel about it? If that's the impression I gave, it wasn't my intent. As with most of my comments, I'm presenting only my opinion and perspective as to why so many people and official bodies (like states) might have a problem with what is clearly a symbol of a rebel movement. No one has to change their feelings about any flag on my account.
"We don't understand it. Better ban it."
Has anyone actually called for banning a flag in this thread? The closest I've seen to that is the argument that the state shouldn't have to offer it as a vanity plate.
As you say, you had "no dog in the fight", so I don't know why you're so insistent on dictating to those who did how they should or should not feel about it, or how they should or should not relate to its symbols, or, for God's sake, their own bloody ancestors.
Yes to all of this you just said. I don't care anything about the flag, but most of my family were in the south before the US was a country.
And as you also mentioned, this is not about the fact that the south rebelled, this is about race. And I totally get why black people would not be thrilled with symbols of the old south, but I also get the other side of it too. The most kind thing would be to drop it which is what most people have done, but that doesn't mean I think anyone should be forced to do so.
But for heavens sakes, nobody needs help picking out a symbol of anything. Sheesh.
I'm having a tough time choosing between EMD and Laslo for thread winner. Maybe they could divide the prize money?
They are specifically calling for the state to ban the issuance of confederate-themed license plates where the state is issuing states advocating other messages, yes. Precisely.
The state is attempting to ban one message while promoting another, solely on the basis of content, alone.
Brando: That's right, it's not...
Sorry, I was misled by your numerous posts projecting your own perception of a symbol onto the people displaying that symbol.
...but I'm also not the one who gets huffy when people make assumptions based on what symbols I choose to display, either.
Who's getting huffy about other people merely making assumptions about the displayer of symbols? I thought we were talking about people getting huffy about not being able to display the symbols?
For the record, I don't think that the state making judgments about the offensiveness of vanity plates is the great civil liberty issue of our time. I'd only be ticked if the judgments evinced a flagrant double standard.
The Confederacy was not pure evil, and most of its leaders were not moral monsters. Does anyone doubt that Robert E. Lee was a good and honorable man? Why should the flag of his army be banned?
His soldiers won battle after battle in which they were outnumbered two, three, and sometimes four to one. Is it wrong for the descendants of these men to be proud of them?
The Civil War is an important part of our heritage. The suffering experienced by the entire South, and the courage and valor of its armies, are part of that heritage as well. Why should it be forgotten? Why should anyone be ashamed of it?
I won't pay for them, but I love the pretty ones. Not the 'viewpoint' ones which are boring, but the game and fish/ducks unlimited ones. And the 'go hogs' ones. If I still lived in VA I might consider getting one my university.
Shanna - I just wish the choices available weren't so boring, at least here in Michigan. Ohio and Florida have some of the coolest ones.
"Who's getting huffy about other people merely making assumptions about the displayer of symbols? I thought we were talking about people getting huffy about not being able to display the symbols?"
I was making two separate points there--the license display issue I only see as a question of whether the state has an interest in not "endorsing" viewpoints, and if that display actually was endorsement. Whether it's a confederate symbol or any political symbol shouldn't make a difference. The other point was merely my own thoughts about the symbol--that there are reasons it elicits negative reactions, even if it wasn't intended to do so.
"For the record, I don't think that the state making judgments about the offensiveness of vanity plates is the great civil liberty issue of our time. I'd only be ticked if the judgments evinced a flagrant double standard."
I don't disagree--there shouldn't be a double standard, such as "we allow pro-life plates but no pro-choice" or vice versa. But I can understand the "we only want plates endorsing bland, noncontroversial viewpoints" argument as well.
Shanna - I just wish the choices available weren't so boring, at least here in Michigan. Ohio and Florida have some of the coolest ones.
I can see Florida having beachy scenes and boats! Our prettiest ones are outdoorsy. I was just looking and there is a humingbird one that I would seriously consider if I liked the color scheme.
Game and Fish Woodpecker:
http://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/offices/motorVehicle/Pages/specialityPlateDetails.aspx?show=33
Ducks unlimited:
http://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/offices/motorVehicle/Pages/specialityPlateDetails.aspx?show=25
Puppy Dog:
http://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/offices/motorVehicle/Pages/specialityPlateDetails.aspx?show=95
That being the case, I don't know what constitutes a “state” seceding — in the Civil War, it came down to the legislature deciding…
Best I can tell, all of the seceding states did so not directly by the act of their legislatures, but authorized by individual secession conventions that were held in each state. Those in turn were established by the legislatures (and elected by the people?).
I suppose Lincoln was troubled enough by these quandries he just said “screw it” and sent in the troops.
On the contrary, Lincoln stated that he would never be the one to lunch hostilities. He did authorize the continued occupation of installations which were the property of the United States Government, that had been sold by the states to that entity on such a basis.
The South thereupon (South Carolina specifically) launched the war against the United States — via their attack on the U.S.'s Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor — and then didn't like the war they got.
"On the contrary, Lincoln stated that he would never be the one to lunch hostilities."
I was kidding with the suggestion that Lincoln only went to war because the legal issue of secession was too convoluted.
I do find interesting the question of who has authority to make others secede--there were a lot of southerners who got the short end of the stick there, particularly in VA and TN, where there was stronger unionist sentiment, yet those states were the most prominent battlefields of the war.
Lesson here--next time South Carolina tries talking you into something, walk away!
In the late 70s, I was living in the Philippines, outside Clark AB. Local bars did not usually racially discriminate, because the base would declare them 'off limits to military personnel' if they did. One night I walked into a bar and saw a large confederate flag over the bar. The bar had nothing else southern about it. Not the music, not the bar flies, the bartender was Filipino. I asked him about the flag. He said that it keeps the ni66ers out, they see that they leave. IOW, the bar owner, whoever that was, was using the black's own prejudice to keep them out of his bar.
BTW, I think the flag is a pretty flag, but I wouldn't put it on my car. It would be an invitation to be assaulted. I read about a guy who was beaten to death by a black mob because he had a confederate flag on his truck.
While I might not have a problem with the flag per se, I am struggling to see this option as a constitutional right. Just like I don't have a problem with gay marriage, yet I don't believe it to be a constitutional right.
This is sooo late that I doubt anyone will see it, but this situation is a wonderful example of government of losing sight of serving the politiy's needs and trying to satisfy its wants.
There should be *no* specialty logo license plates. Problem solved.
The State has put itself in the position of regulating speech. Bad idea.
Brando,
"3) Pacific Northwest. A grungy flannel man drinking a microbrew, carrying a bag of locally grown weed..."
FIFY.
Symbolic of good men fighting for a bad cause.
A common comment of the time was, "A rich man's war, a poor man's fight."
Still dislike bumper sticker philosophy on an official license plate.
Post a Comment