Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.

[politicallefty]

Link.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As noted later in the article, this decision does create a split among the Circuit Courts. North Carolina has been forbidden to issue "Choose Life" (i.e. anti-choice on abortion) plates on account that it will not issue plates for the opposing side.

I'm a very strong proponent of free speech rights, but I fail to see how this case reaches that level. I do not believe the First Amendment requires the government to adopt a particular point of view. In this case, the Fifth Circuit is effectively requiring the state of Texas to adopt a symbol that represents treason against the United States. Even if it were another symbol, I would maintain my position. I fail to understand the concept whereby a license plate is a blank canvass for speech. It really should be nothing more than a governmental registration of a vehicle. On a similar note, who gets to plaster their driver's license with political slogans? I can't say I'm aware of such a concept myself.

I would argue that there is no First Amendment question here. A plain license plate does not abridge one's freedom of speech. I do not see a constitutional right to have any particular form of speech on your government-issued/required license plate. However, even if free speech were actually the issue, I would argue that both sides of an issue must be represented. In other words, if the government allows a pro-life plate, it must also allow a pro-choice plate. However, if the government forbids one, the other must also be forbidden. Basically, if one side is allowed its viewpoint, the other must be allowed. Either way, I see nothing in the Constitution stopping Texas from denying that particular plate. Ideally though, the government should be disallowing all specialty plates (other than, perhaps, special plates for veterans), although that seems to be a purely political question.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't really see split circuits here.  Now if Texas allowed an anti-Confederate license plate while disallowing the pro-Confederate plate then it would be, but the North Carolina decision was about whether a State could choose to issue plates supportive of only one side of a political issue.  Furthermore, Texas wasn't about whether there could be an SCV license plate but to what extent Texas could regulate the imagery on it.

[Cory]

Abolish all custom license plates and be done with it, FFS.

[GLPman]

I agree that there is no First Amendment question here. If the Court did determine there was a First Amendment question, however, then I also agree that both sides of the issue should be represented. Citizens should be able to purchase political plates (i.e., pro-life or pro-choice plates) at their own peril.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm not sure whether freedom of speech applies when it involves paying homage to an enemy of the United States, like this does.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm not sure whether freedom of speech applies when it involves paying homage to an enemy of the United States, like this does.

Why wouldn't it?

The reason that this isn't a free speech issue is because it's a government-issued plate; it has nothing to do with the content of the plate.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm not sure whether freedom of speech applies when it involves paying homage to an enemy of the United States, like this does.

Why wouldn't it?

The reason that this isn't a free speech issue is because it's a government-issued plate; it has nothing to do with the content of the plate.

Why would the government endorse treason against the United States?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This has nothing to do with free speech. A free speech issue would be for example trying to restrict pro-Confederate bumper stickers, which would be blatantly unconstitutional and would never go anywhere. But content put on a government issue license plate does not involve free speech.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Abolish all custom license plates and be done with it, FFS.

Nearly everyone with a custom license plate is a terrible, yes.

[Deus Naturae]

I'm not sure whether freedom of speech applies when it involves paying homage to an enemy of the United States, like this does.

Why wouldn't it?

The reason that this isn't a free speech issue is because it's a government-issued plate; it has nothing to do with the content of the plate.

Why would the government endorse treason against the United States?

That's not really relevant. The question is whether the government declining to issue custom plates is unconstitutional (it clearly isn't). The content of those plates (treasonous or otherwise) is irrelevant.