Supreme Court deals blow to Rebel Flag

[Skylar]

holy smokes. these people won't be satisfied until they take away all OUR RIGHTS in this country
drip drip drip all over some freaking flag

If you want a rebel flag on your car, slap it on the bumper. Or in the back window. Or fluttering from your radio antenna. Paint it on the roof like the General Lee.

You have every freedom to express yourself. What you can't do is force the State to express your beliefs.

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right?

Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.

A license plate isn't commerce.

Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.

They a fee. Not commerce. Take a look at PA laws. You'll find they don't cover government fees as 'commerce'.

 

[bendog]

holy smokes. these people won't be satisfied until they take away all OUR RIGHTS in this country
drip drip drip all over some freaking flag

If you want a rebel flag on your car, slap it on the bumper. Or in the back window. Or fluttering from your radio antenna. Paint it on the roof like the General Lee.

You have every freedom to express yourself. What you can't do is force the State to express your beliefs.

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right?

Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.

A license plate isn't commerce.

Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.

That seems to be the road the majority took in finding the tags were "government speech," which has no 1st Amendment protections. I'm not at all sure the SOCVs can take this up now in state court. There is the state constitution, and assuming there's a freedom of speech provision in it, state courts may construe state constitutions to give more individual freedom that the US const. But practically I don't see how the SOCVs get there. The Tx dept of motor vehicles decided no confed tags. I'm having trouble conceptualizing why a state court would rule an administrative agency cannot make it's own determinations when the tags are considered govt speech.

But after my old dog, Longstreet, passes, ah'm still gettin' a golden retriever and namin' him Nathan Bedford Forrest.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's on our state flag, and we ain't gonna change it.

mississippi state flag pictures - Yahoo Search Results

I think you should keep flying a racist treasonous flag.

"Treason" against a filthy out of control tyrannical government is a good thing, Moon Bat.

Rick Perry, Tyrant of Texas, wants to be your next president too.

 

[OKTexas]

holy smokes. these people won't be satisfied until they take away all OUR RIGHTS in this country
drip drip drip all over some freaking flag

If you want a rebel flag on your car, slap it on the bumper. Or in the back window. Or fluttering from your radio antenna. Paint it on the roof like the General Lee.

You have every freedom to express yourself. What you can't do is force the State to express your beliefs.

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right?

Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.

A license plate isn't commerce.

Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.

That seems to be the road the majority took in finding the tags were "government speech," which has no 1st Amendment protections. I'm not at all sure the SOCVs can take this up now in state court. There is the state constitution, and assuming there's a freedom of speech provision in it, state courts may construe state constitutions to give more individual freedom that the US const. But practically I don't see how the SOCVs get there. The Tx dept of motor vehicles decided no confed tags. I'm having trouble conceptualizing why a state court would rule an administrative agency cannot make it's own determinations when the tags are considered govt speech.

But after my old dog, Longstreet, passes, ah'm still gettin' a golden retriever and namin' him Nathan Bedford Forrest.

That's where the court got it wrong, the state is selling the right to individuals to replace the government message with their own for a profit. Let's extend the courts argument, how about the ads that are paid to be placed on public transportation, is that also a government message, an endorsement so to speak and can they be held financially liable for endorsing a bad product or service or can I sue them if I find the ad offensive?

 

[bendog]

If you want a rebel flag on your car, slap it on the bumper. Or in the back window. Or fluttering from your radio antenna. Paint it on the roof like the General Lee.

You have every freedom to express yourself. What you can't do is force the State to express your beliefs.

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right?

Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.

A license plate isn't commerce.

Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.

That seems to be the road the majority took in finding the tags were "government speech," which has no 1st Amendment protections. I'm not at all sure the SOCVs can take this up now in state court. There is the state constitution, and assuming there's a freedom of speech provision in it, state courts may construe state constitutions to give more individual freedom that the US const. But practically I don't see how the SOCVs get there. The Tx dept of motor vehicles decided no confed tags. I'm having trouble conceptualizing why a state court would rule an administrative agency cannot make it's own determinations when the tags are considered govt speech.

But after my old dog, Longstreet, passes, ah'm still gettin' a golden retriever and namin' him Nathan Bedford Forrest.

That's where the court got it wrong, the state is selling the right to individuals to replace the government message with their own for a profit. Let's extend the courts argument, how about the ads that are paid to be placed on public transportation, is that also a government message, an endorsement so to

speak and ?[/QUOTE]
can they be held financially liable for endorsing a bad product or service or can I sue them if I find the ad offensive

No.

 

[OKTexas]

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right?

Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.

A license plate isn't commerce.

Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.

That seems to be the road the majority took in finding the tags were "government speech," which has no 1st Amendment protections. I'm not at all sure the SOCVs can take this up now in state court. There is the state constitution, and assuming there's a freedom of speech provision in it, state courts may construe state constitutions to give more individual freedom that the US const. But practically I don't see how the SOCVs get there. The Tx dept of motor vehicles decided no confed tags. I'm having trouble conceptualizing why a state court would rule an administrative agency cannot make it's own determinations when the tags are considered govt speech.

But after my old dog, Longstreet, passes, ah'm still gettin' a golden retriever and namin' him Nathan Bedford Forrest.

That's where the court got it wrong, the state is selling the right to individuals to replace the government message with their own for a profit. Let's extend the courts argument, how about the ads that are paid to be placed on public transportation, is that also a government message, an endorsement so to

speak and ?

can they be held financially liable for endorsing a bad product or service or can I sue them if I find the ad offensive

No.[/QUOTE]

Why, it's not a public service and they are in it for the money, just like any business.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you want a rebel flag on your car, slap it on the bumper. Or in the back window. Or fluttering from your radio antenna. Paint it on the roof like the General Lee.

You have every freedom to express yourself. What you can't do is force the State to express your beliefs.

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right?

Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.

A license plate isn't commerce.

Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.

That seems to be the road the majority took in finding the tags were "government speech," which has no 1st Amendment protections. I'm not at all sure the SOCVs can take this up now in state court. There is the state constitution, and assuming there's a freedom of speech provision in it, state courts may construe state constitutions to give more individual freedom that the US const. But practically I don't see how the SOCVs get there. The Tx dept of motor vehicles decided no confed tags. I'm having trouble conceptualizing why a state court would rule an administrative agency cannot make it's own determinations when the tags are considered govt speech.

But after my old dog, Longstreet, passes, ah'm still gettin' a golden retriever and namin' him Nathan Bedford Forrest.

That's where the court got it wrong, the state is selling the right to individuals to replace the government message with their own for a profit. Let's extend the courts argument, how about the ads that are paid to be placed on public transportation, is that also a government message, an endorsement so to speak and can they be held financially liable for endorsing a bad product or service or can I sue them if I find the ad offensive?

The difference is, private enterprise rents the space on public transportation and places the message. With license plates the state is making the license plate.

 

[Londoner]

Wait. Wait. Wait. You mean the federal government can't force the States to accept a rebel flag license plate? You mean states have the right to control their own destiny? I thought The Federal Government was supposed to control everything at all times. What's this world coming to? Conservatives are going to be pissed when they find out that the nanny government is slipping in its role as absolute master.

 

[bendog]

Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.

A license plate isn't commerce.

Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.

That seems to be the road the majority took in finding the tags were "government speech," which has no 1st Amendment protections. I'm not at all sure the SOCVs can take this up now in state court. There is the state constitution, and assuming there's a freedom of speech provision in it, state courts may construe state constitutions to give more individual freedom that the US const. But practically I don't see how the SOCVs get there. The Tx dept of motor vehicles decided no confed tags. I'm having trouble conceptualizing why a state court would rule an administrative agency cannot make it's own determinations when the tags are considered govt speech.

But after my old dog, Longstreet, passes, ah'm still gettin' a golden retriever and namin' him Nathan Bedford Forrest.

That's where the court got it wrong, the state is selling the right to individuals to replace the government message with their own for a profit. Let's extend the courts argument, how about the ads that are paid to be placed on public transportation, is that also a government message, an endorsement so to

speak and ?

can they be held financially liable for endorsing a bad product or service or can I sue them if I find the ad offensive

No.

Why, it's not a public service and they are in it for the money, just like any business.[/QUOTE]
Neither.

I think the interesting question here (aside from Thomas abandoning his 4 fellow gop appointees over the sacred Stars and Bars) is why the Texas governor didn't order the DMV to issue the plates long before any legal challenge.

 

[OKTexas]

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right?

Anyone engaged in commerce is subject to PA laws. Most PA laws don't express my beliefs.

A license plate isn't commerce.

Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.

That seems to be the road the majority took in finding the tags were "government speech," which has no 1st Amendment protections. I'm not at all sure the SOCVs can take this up now in state court. There is the state constitution, and assuming there's a freedom of speech provision in it, state courts may construe state constitutions to give more individual freedom that the US const. But practically I don't see how the SOCVs get there. The Tx dept of motor vehicles decided no confed tags. I'm having trouble conceptualizing why a state court would rule an administrative agency cannot make it's own determinations when the tags are considered govt speech.

But after my old dog, Longstreet, passes, ah'm still gettin' a golden retriever and namin' him Nathan Bedford Forrest.

That's where the court got it wrong, the state is selling the right to individuals to replace the government message with their own for a profit. Let's extend the courts argument, how about the ads that are paid to be placed on public transportation, is that also a government message, an endorsement so to speak and can they be held financially liable for endorsing a bad product or service or can I sue them if I find the ad offensive?

The difference is, private enterprise rents the space on public transportation and places the message. With license plates the state is making the license plate.

Wrong answer, the state sells the rights to make vanity plates to private companies.

MyPlates.com - Our Plates are street legal and officially licensed by Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

 

[occupied]

The bigots should buy a sticker and put it on their bumper if they want to advertise their bigotry that badly. I don't remember any of them getting riled up when the Klan/nazis/white supremacists used it so they forfeited the right to complain that it means something besides hate. The swastika used to mean good luck and was a ward against the evil eye, now it means hate, the rebel flag never meant anything so pure in the first place.

 

[bendog]

The bigots should buy a sticker and put it on their bumper if they want to advertise their bigotry that badly. I don't remember any of them getting riled up when the Klan/nazis/white supremacists used it so they forfeited the right to complain that it means something besides hate. The swastika used to mean good luck and was a ward against the evil eye, now it means hate, the rebel flag never meant anything so pure in the first place.

What are really cool are those window treatments that turn the entire back window of your pickup truck into a rebel flag. If my wife ever lets me have a pickup truck, I'm getting one of those!

 

[OKTexas]

Actually custom plates are commerce, the state makes a profit on them over and above normal fees.

That seems to be the road the majority took in finding the tags were "government speech," which has no 1st Amendment protections. I'm not at all sure the SOCVs can take this up now in state court. There is the state constitution, and assuming there's a freedom of speech provision in it, state courts may construe state constitutions to give more individual freedom that the US const. But practically I don't see how the SOCVs get there. The Tx dept of motor vehicles decided no confed tags. I'm having trouble conceptualizing why a state court would rule an administrative agency cannot make it's own determinations when the tags are considered govt speech.

But after my old dog, Longstreet, passes, ah'm still gettin' a golden retriever and namin' him Nathan Bedford Forrest.

That's where the court got it wrong, the state is selling the right to individuals to replace the government message with their own for a profit. Let's extend the courts argument, how about the ads that are paid to be placed on public transportation, is that also a government message, an endorsement so to

speak and ?

can they be held financially liable for endorsing a bad product or service or can I sue them if I find the ad offensive

No.

Why, it's not a public service and they are in it for the money, just like any business.

Neither.

I think the interesting question here (aside from Thomas abandoning his 4 fellow gop appointees over the sacred Stars and Bars) is why the Texas governor didn't order the DMV to issue the plates long before any legal challenge.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, the message is irrelevant, my problem with the state and the court is exempting the state from the same standards they hold private businesses to, when the state is engages is a for profit public service just like private business.

 

[bendog]

my problem with the state and the court is exempting the state from the same standards they hold private businesses to, when the state is engages is a for profit public service just like private business
-
I understand what you mean, but I just don't agree that it's the state is doing anything comparable to private business in allowing people to select a plate with some state approved message on it, and pay a bit extra to do so.

What I think interesting is that Mississippi DOES have a SOCV tag. Why did Texas's governor(s) not tell DMV to issue the tag?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's the correct ruling. License plates are state property. They can put anything on them they want. That's what this case is about, not the content of what was going to be on the plate.

 

[Flash]

Rick Perry, Tyrant of Texas, wants to be your next president too.

He would be a much better President than that corrupt stupid incompetent stolen valor bitch Clinton or that silly slobbering socialist goof Sanders.

 

[bodecea]

holy smokes. these people won't be satisfied until they take away all OUR RIGHTS in this country
drip drip drip all over some freaking flag

If you want a rebel flag on your car, slap it on the bumper. Or in the back window. Or fluttering from your radio antenna. Paint it on the roof like the General Lee.

You have every freedom to express yourself. What you can't do is force the State to express your beliefs.

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right? The state is offering a service for a fee, just like the baker, so why would they be exempt from public accommodation laws?

You are complaining about PA laws...what have you done to get them repealed in your state?

 

[bodecea]

In solidarity with my heritage I am changing my Avatar.

Your heritage is a four year period where your ancestors started a war in support of slavery and got their asses kicked?

 

[ogibillm]

holy smokes. these people won't be satisfied until they take away all OUR RIGHTS in this country
drip drip drip all over some freaking flag

You honestly thought you had a right to force your state to make a special license plate for you?

 

[OKTexas]

holy smokes. these people won't be satisfied until they take away all OUR RIGHTS in this country
drip drip drip all over some freaking flag

If you want a rebel flag on your car, slap it on the bumper. Or in the back window. Or fluttering from your radio antenna. Paint it on the roof like the General Lee.

You have every freedom to express yourself. What you can't do is force the State to express your beliefs.

Right, but the state can force a baker to express your beliefs, right? The state is offering a service for a fee, just like the baker, so why would they be exempt from public accommodation laws?

You are complaining about PA laws...what have you done to get them repealed in your state?

No, I'm complaining that a state when engaged in for profit activities are not held to the same standards as any other business.