Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the lemme-say-whut-i-want dept.

Recently, oral arguments were heard regarding a case about license plates and the first amendment. The Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has challenged a rejection of their proposed plate that had images of the Confederate flag.

The Texas solicitor general argued that, "Messages on Texas license plates are government speech ... [because] Texas etches its name onto each license plate and Texas law gives the state sole control and final approval authority over everything that appears on a license plate.”

Please share your ideas/comments on this case or your views on vanity plates in general.

Story: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-confederate-license-plates-20150323-story.html
Case: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_14_144
What a vanity plate is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_plate

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:19PM (#166686)

    Common sense says anyone stupid enough to put any political speech on their vehicle (thus inviting anonymous vandalism/damage to said vehicle in the form of keying, tire slashing, etc) deserves what they get.

    Would I prefer to live in a society where people were above such petty acts? Sure. But then in a truly civil society people also wouldn't feel the need to broadcast their opinions everywhere they go.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:27PM (#166689)

    Common sense says anyone stupid enough to put any political speech on their vehicle (thus inviting anonymous vandalism/damage to said vehicle in the form of keying, tire slashing, etc) deserves what they get.

    What is "common sense"? Have you conducted some sort of statistically significant survey and found that most people agree with this, or are you just giving your own opinion and calling it "common sense"? Furthermore, how common something is is irrelevant to whether or not it is correct, so "common sense" is meaningless anyway. Just tell people to use their brains, not to go by some ambiguous "common sense" that may or may not be common.

    Second of all, I don't think they deserve what they get. Maybe it is unsurprising that someone would vandalize their property, but unsurprising != them deserving it.

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:04PM

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:04PM (#166712) Journal

      I want to wear my Schutzstaffel [wikipedia.org] uniform around the town while shopping. I'm not a Nazi - I just wish to honour this history and brave sacrifices of my family - of my grandfather who laid his life down for the sacred values under which I was raised. I won't let any "political correctness" wipe away the symbol of that bond of loyalty and heritage.

      It doesn't have anything to do with Jews, or the "peculiar institution" of a final solution.

      Now, some may say I need more "common sense" than this. Let me tell you, I don't need common sense! I have a statistically significant survey and found that most people agree with this.

      If anybody were to take offense at me and the the glorious Reich? It's ridiculous to think that I deserve any attack or approbation at all - let alone that there's even any likelihood.

      --
      You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 4, Disagree) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:16PM

        by frojack (1554) on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:16PM (#166721) Journal

        He did it. He actually played the Godwin card [wikipedia.org].

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:21PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:21PM (#166727) Journal

          But, sadly, Godwin does not go far enough. Yes, the SS were evil, true-believing Nazis and all. But at least they were not clearly and openly traitors to their own country, like the American Confederates were.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:25PM

            by frojack (1554) on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:25PM (#166732) Journal

            I'm having trouble deciding between murders and traitors.
            Seems like a trick question and I sense a bitchslap in the offing regardless of which I choose.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 3, Funny) by fadrian on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:32PM

              by fadrian (3194) on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:32PM (#166736) Homepage

              But let's face it - you deserve it because you entered the conversation? Don't you, fro bro? Don't you just?

              --
              That is all.
            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:58PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:58PM (#166742) Journal

              I'm having trouble deciding between murders and traitors.

              Would it help if it was between racist genocidal murders and slaving racist traitors?

              The Big Lebowski might help, because as Walter says, "Said what you want about the tenets of Southern Confederalism, at least it was an ethos." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w [youtube.com]

              • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:32PM

                by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:32PM (#166755) Journal

                American and Caribbean plantation slavery were also a genocide. One that lasted for more than 6 or 7 years.

                --
                You're betting on the pantomime horse...
                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:47PM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:47PM (#166760) Journal

                  American and Caribbean plantation slavery were also a genocide.

                  Let's not belabor the point. Frojack is already penitent. And besides, Arbeit Macht Frei!

                • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:14PM

                  by frojack (1554) on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:14PM (#166766) Journal

                  American and Caribbean plantation slavery were also a genocide. One that lasted for more than 6 or 7 years.

                  In large part that is true of South America. Their economic theory was to work slaves to death. They worked their way through about 12 million [theroot.com]. Mostly used in mining and other dangerous work.

                  In North America, only about 388 thousand slaves were imported, and the southern plantation owners theory was to breed the rest in-country. They could get useful work out of ten year old kids. And having kids around made slaves less likely to rise in rebellion. Although some histories suggest wanton murder of slaves, that was neither the norm nor economical in the North American experience. It was quite common in South America, because as soon as a slave couldn't work in the mines they were useless.

                  The Genocide aspect of Slavery Trade rested mostly with the African tribal warloards that captured and sold entire rival tribes into slavery.
                  Slave merchants had no mercenaries running around Africa gathering slaves. It was all done by paying some local chieftain by the head. They got paid for the slave and got to keep the lands they depopulated. A double win for them. There was a great deal of competition to be a slave provider.

                  When international Slave Trade was banned in 1820 it pretty well spelled the death knell for the South American mines, but no so much in North America.

                  --
                  No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @02:40AM

                    by Thexalon (636) on Monday April 06 2015, @02:40AM (#166829)

                    Another important difference between the African slave trade and what we now term "genocide" is that the capturing of slaves in Africa was not done with the purpose of destroying the culture of the captured people, but rather sheer profit. And indeed, the cultures that lost many to the slave trade still survive to this day in Africa.

                    By contrast, the stated policy goal of Andrew Jackson was to kill every American Indian in North America if he could. The stated goal of the Holocaust was to kill all Jews. The stated goal of the Rwandan genocide was to kill all Tutsis. And there are many other examples of this particular kind of depravity.

                    So yes, the slave trade and slavery were terrible. But it was not, according to the usual definitions, a genocide.

                    --
                    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
              • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:07PM

                by TheGratefulNet (659) on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:07PM (#166777)

                well, thats just, like, your opinion, man.

                --
                "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:37PM (#166759)

            But at least they were not clearly and openly traitors to their own country

            Just being a traitor to a country says nothing. Supporting slavery says much more about them than them being traitors. Someone who is a traitor can be an ethical person if the country they are 'betraying' is evil.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:44PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:44PM (#166773) Journal

              Someone who is a traitor can be an ethical person if the country they are 'betraying' is evil.

              Maybe. But we should examine this a bit more carefully. This is the whole point of going Godwin, and even more the point of calling "Godwin": to stop reasoned consideration of a point. So the argument so far:

              1. Good ole boys in Texas can't but Confederate battle flags on their license plates.
              2. Doing so is just like wearing an SS uniform to honor one's German ancestors.
              3. Nazis were just evil, not traitors (in a plain and simple sense, you could make a case there were in effect.)
              4. Race-based slavery in the New World was tantamount to genocide, and lasted much longer than Nazism.
              5. Treason against an evil government can be good.

              So what we have here is a direct conflict between the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Neo-Confederates want the ability to freely admit to treason. But is treason really not bad some times? Racism, whether of the Nazi or Confederate version (and they are related, cf. eugenics movement in the US), is an evil. But to turn on your own, to attack without warning those you are joined with in a civil union, that is something that is always wrong, in all cultures. Even those who defect from evil regimes are suspect, since they have turned on those who trusted them, and even if they say they are now on our side (the side of good and cookies!), we cannot trust them. So when the Confederacy attacked the Union, it added treachery and betrayal to the longstanding practices of racial slavery and genocide.

              (Addendum: Betraying evil may seem like a good thing, but it is still betrayal. The proper recourse is to publicly take a stand against the evil, as in Civil Disobedience, or to take your leave, again openly and publicly, without being a traitor. )

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:30PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:30PM (#166780)

                But to turn on your own, to attack without warning those you are joined with in a civil union, that is something that is always wrong, in all cultures.

                I'd say it's not wrong in some situations, regardless of what the culture (probably the one you're trying to escape from) says.

                Even those who defect from evil regimes are suspect, since they have turned on those who trusted them, and even if they say they are now on our side (the side of good and cookies!), we cannot trust them.

                Given the discussion, all it shows is that they'll betray evil. If your country does not violate people's liberties, there will be no problem. And if they remained loyal to their original country, they would still be untrustworthy and they would be hated either way.

                Addendum: Betraying evil may seem like a good thing, but it is still betrayal.

                And, of course, betrayal isn't always bad.

                The proper recourse is to publicly take a stand against the evil, as in Civil Disobedience, or to take your leave, again openly and publicly, without being a traitor.

                The proper recourse depends entirely on the situation. I have no problem with completely betraying evil that is violating everyone's rights. There is no solution that will work in every situation.

                • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:44PM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:44PM (#166786) Journal

                  You see, this is why I cannot trust ACs. They'll just stab you in the back if they think you're evil, without stopping to think that maybe they are the ones that . . .

              • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @11:53PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @11:53PM (#166798)

                But to turn on your own, to attack without warning those you are joined with in a civil union, that is something that is always wrong, in all cultures. Even those who defect from evil regimes are suspect, since they have turned on those who trusted them, and even if they say they are now on our side (the side of good and cookies!), we cannot trust them.

                You have just explained exactly why so many people hate Edward Snowden.

                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:46AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:46AM (#166831)

                  Because they're government bootlickers who don't care one bit for the principles and freedoms the US is supposed to stand for. Mindless tribalism is all it is.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @06:23AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @06:23AM (#166861)

                    Ironically your post is an example of mindless tribalism too. So meta!

                    Sure I'm being snarky, but given how the discussion had clearly identified those who defect from evil regimes, you still had to come along and do a bit of mindless cheerleading for your tribe rather than accept any possibility of nuance. And then someone modded you up as "informative" as if what you wrote actually added anything new to the discussion, like there have not been literally a million other posts saying exactly the same thing since Snowden defected.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:56AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:56AM (#166924)

                      Ironically your post is an example of mindless tribalism too. So meta!

                      Actually, no it's not. It's an example of me forming an individual opinion and cheering on someone who challenged the intolerable status quo.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:49PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:49PM (#166988)

                        Woooosh!

                        Of course the tribalist thinks his cheerleading is valid and meaningful.

              • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @01:35AM

                by frojack (1554) on Monday April 06 2015, @01:35AM (#166810) Journal

                I tried to point out (in above postings) that your #4 was not really true in North America.

                The plan in NA was to preserve the slave as property, not wipe them out. Genocide is the wrong word, the wrong concept, and not what happened.

                The overwhelming majority of blacks in the US at the beginning of the civil war were descended from those 388 thousand imported slaves.
                In 1860 they numbered 3.9 million, a 10 fold increase. [bowdoin.edu]

                (Blacks were 12.7% of the US population in 1860, and that percentage holds true today.).

                The black population grew steadily, way in excess of imported slaves both before and after 1820 outlawing of international slave trading. Slavery was a lot of horrible things, but genocide wasn't one of them.

                --
                No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                • (Score: 2, Disagree) by aristarchus on Monday April 06 2015, @04:24AM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Monday April 06 2015, @04:24AM (#166842) Journal

                  Hey, Fro,
                  Since I know you put some thought into your posts, I appreciate the interposition. But look up the definition of genocide. It is not a matter of individual fatalities, it's more a matter of the destruction of a people. So you could increase their numbers, to your profit, I might add, and still be committing genocide. Second, racism, which seems to be a recurring topic here, and I can only suspect that is because of a heavy American presence. Chattel Slavery has existed as long as humans have had any political structure. It is only in the Modern period that so-called "race" has had anything to do with it. Greeks were slaves to Greeks, and to Persians, and even to Israelis if they were lucky (ancient times, I refer to here). But with a race-based slavery and doctrines of racial superiority and Social Darwinism, things change, and not for the better. That is why slavery in the Americas is at least as bad, if not worse, than any inhumanity ever done by some people to another. And the costs still remain. Your revisionist history misses the point. And it was you that called "Godwin"? Oh, the huge manatee!

                  • (Score: 5, Touché) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @05:22AM

                    by frojack (1554) on Monday April 06 2015, @05:22AM (#166851) Journal

                    But look up the definition of genocide. It is not a matter of individual fatalities, it's more a matter of the destruction of a people.

                    I just did that.

                    the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

                    Using a new age definition of genocide, or stretching the definition, really isn't helpful. Sort of like throwing the word "toxic" around too glibly as is all too common these days. The killing of people based on some national or racial basis is KEY to the definition of genocide.

                    There never was any intent of "destruction of a people" here. There wasn't a plan, to do so, and it didn't happen.
                    Those groups sold into slavery (sold by their own brothers) were not wiped out. They persist today both in Africa and in America.
                    The slave traders looked at it like they were buying cattle. (Or so they claim). They had no reason to want to their source of income to be wiped out.

                    The only people with animosity toward the enslaved were the enslavers, neighboring tribes, land coveters, historical rivals, or petty tyrants, almost certainly of the same ethnic stock as those they sold.

                    --
                    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday April 06 2015, @05:48AM

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Monday April 06 2015, @05:48AM (#166856) Journal

                      Frojack! You are better than this! First, you could have used the definition of genocide under international law, which is kinda, you know, correct? Second, those who held persons in bondage because of skin color were certainly not doing so out of humanitarian concerns. It just made it easier to spot the runaways, like our own Runaway1956! Black? Must be a slave! Certainly you have seen the recent movie. And you may have heard of the Dredd-Scott decision of the Supreme Court?

                      And perhaps the entire group from which slaves were taken were not wiped out. But that reveals two things, again. Genocide does not have to be successful to be genocide, and secondly, you can commit genocide on a portion of a people. I suggest you take a look at policy toward Primal Peoples in Canada as an example. The fostering of native children to detach them from their heritage is an act of genocide, even if it only happens to one child.

                      New age definition? No, the definition, under international law. The ground has shifted beneath your feet, as Obama put it in his Inaugural address. Best to recognize this before you fall down and find out that after all, you are a racist. Maybe an accidental racist, but a racist nonetheless.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @06:45AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @06:45AM (#166864)

                        Frojack is of the modern conservative mindset which thinks race is not a social construct. If race is pure biology then a "captive breeding program" can't be genocide because the biology is preserved despite the fact that the identity of the people is eliminated.

                        > New age definition? No, the definition, under international law.

                        It would help if you actually cited that definition.

                        "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

                        (a) Killing members of the group;
                        (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
                        (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
                        (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
                        (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

                        http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.html [genocidewatch.org]

                        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:03AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:03AM (#166868)

                          Race isn't a social construct. You're thinking of culture. Killing an entire race of people will typically destroy their culture entirely as well, but one doesn't need a specific skin color or have a certain heritage to share the same culture.

                          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday April 06 2015, @08:04AM

                            by aristarchus (2645) on Monday April 06 2015, @08:04AM (#166887) Journal

                            Poor Tejas, so far from God, and so far from God. I am not a racist because I don't understand what race is? WTF? Well, now I say let them have the "special" plates. Between those, the "truck nuts" and them "rolling coal", we will know who to have to drones target.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:31AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:31AM (#166900)

                            > Race isn't a social construct. You're thinking of culture.

                            Hhhm. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with you. [nytimes.com]

                            For example, Craig Venter, [wikipedia.org] the first guy to map the human genome, said ''Race is a social concept, not a scientific one."

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:56PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:56PM (#166994)

                              They can disagree all they want, but the definition of the word says otherwise:

                              race
                              noun
                              each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.

                              If they say that race is a social construct, then they're using a different definition for "race" than the one that exists.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @04:33PM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @04:33PM (#167030)

                                > They can disagree all they want, but the definition of the word says otherwise:

                                Typical dictionary pedant doesn't actually check the dictionary:

                                race: [oxforddictionaries.com]
                                1.2 A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.
                                example: "They sought to weld the country's diverse ethnicities into a Brazilian race defined in historical and cultural terms."

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:36PM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:36PM (#167188)

                                  And that definition a subset of the definition I used:

                                  1. Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics

                                  This is the generally-accepted definition of the word and what most people think of when they hear it - specifically referring to distinct physical characteristics. There's also 1.1 and 1.3 that further clarify it, still agreeing with the premise of definition 1.

                                  Like I said, the definition of the word, what most people think of when they hear it, says otherwise.

                      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 06 2015, @08:37PM

                        by frojack (1554) on Monday April 06 2015, @08:37PM (#167159) Journal

                        Hmmm, first you tell me to look up the definition.

                        I do so, I post it.

                        And sure enough you reject it.

                        Now you want to reject my sources and substitute your own, from a body of law which you deem to be superior, but which is the prevailing law exactly NOWHERE.

                        Next time you demand I look something up, but fully intend to honor exactly ONE pet source, just save everybody the time and effort, and post your only acceptable source ahead of time.

                        Further, slavery didn't choose blacks because their color made them easier to find when they ran away. They already had a population readily at hand that they could have chosen for that - American Indians.

                        They chose blacks because of the utterly perverted belief among slave holders that they were sub-human, and undeserving of protection, and utterly uneducated, had no government in their country of origin (indeed no countries).

                        This wasn't a north american decision, slavery was rampant in the world at that time, and just about every slave holding countries chose people of this nature.

                        Slavery in north america was never genocide, either in effect or intention. It was a violation of the very principals the country was founded on, and the Northern states should have just rejected the Southern demands and formed a union without them, as many northern delegates had argued. History has proven this believe would have been the better choice.

                        --
                        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday April 07 2015, @04:17AM

                          by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday April 07 2015, @04:17AM (#167314) Journal

                          Hmmm, first you tell me to look up the definition.

                          I do so, I post it.

                          And sure enough you reject it.

                          Predictable, ain't it! But it is still your own fault. Where did you get that particular definition? Dictionary (dot) com? Citation needed! It was your snide remark about "new age definitions" that brought it up. And you may not be aware that, yes, the United States is a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, passed in 1948. Treaties such as this have a standing on par with the US Constitution, according to the US Constitution. So its definition of genocide is in fact the correct definition under United States Law. Period. Vulgar usage might differ, but that is hardly relevant. And I might suggest that you take a look at the United States reservations to signing said Convention. Yep. Racists!

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Monday April 06 2015, @02:21AM

            by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Monday April 06 2015, @02:21AM (#166827) Journal

            By that logic, George Washington was worse than Adolf Hitler, because Washington was a traitor to his country, which was Great Britain, while Hitler was just an "evil, true-believing Nazi" who wanted to genocide the Jewish race.

            Your move, troll.

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday April 06 2015, @05:07AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Monday April 06 2015, @05:07AM (#166848) Journal

              Yeah, you racist! How can you not even see the difference? Let me lay it out.

              George Washington was worse than Adolf Hitler, because Washington was a traitor to his country, which was Great Britain,

              No one is a Britain, and the Britons are long gone. Besides, they were Celts, anyway. So what makes you think that Ol' George was a citizen of Great Britain? Certainly, he did not have rights equal to a British citizen! So how could he commit treason? But as before, this slips down into a major confusion about what is at stake in politics.

              Treason is the betrayal of those who trust you. It is not the betrayal of those who for some pathological reason claim that you must obey them. Does this distinction make sense to you? Loyalty is something given, not something that can be demanded. Alright, now that we have that straight, let's move on the the next postulate. If loyalty can only be given, then we can only commit treason against those we have given loyalty to. Follows, right? Now, what if those that we have sworn loyalty to change such that we no longer grant them loyalty? Sticky wicket, say what? But this is the crux. You can withdraw loyalty, as I believe Washington that the other American Revolutionaries did, or you can pretend to keep it, and use that pretense to your advantage, based on the trust of those whom you have neglected to inform of your change of allegiance. They have to still trust you in order for you to betray them. If you have openly declared your change of heart, treason is impossible. Washington was no traitor. He did own slaves, however. Hmmm.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:00PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:00PM (#166925)

                Treason is the betrayal of those who trust you. It is not the betrayal of those who for some pathological reason claim that you must obey them.

                And yet they were thought of as traitors. And they don't have to trust you; you just had to swear allegiance to them at some point.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @04:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @04:59PM (#167040)

        You bastard! My grandfather died in a German concentration camp. He drank too much one night, and fell out of the tower.

  • (Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:40PM

    by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Sunday April 05 2015, @04:40PM (#166694)

    Expect? Yes. Deserve? No.

    --
    Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:19PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:19PM (#166699)

    That's all somewhat irrelevant to TFA. The issue here is whether the government should assist you in your political speech or not. If you want to put a confederate flag bumper sticker on your car, no one's stopping you. But these people want the Texas state government to make a special confederate flag vanity license plate just for them, which in effect means the state government is now involved in the issue.

    If someone owns a printing business, are they obligated to print pretty color brochures for the KKK? Of course not; they're allowed to turn them away, so that their business is not associated with them. Why should the government be obligated to serve every fringe group that wants their own plate, likely at great expense to the government?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by TLA on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:36PM

      by TLA (5128) on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:36PM (#166704) Journal

      the DVLA prescreens all vanity number plates, and is in fact the only body in the UK authorised to issue them. They have not only final say on what gets screened but also on what gets recalled. Clearly they didn't consider Clarkson's "H982 FLK" plate to be offensive to anyone, but there again they probably didn't bank on him flying it to South America either... Obviously deemed offensive plates such as "P3 NIS" and "V461 NAS" are right out. Damn. Shockingly, new-style plates ending with "PNS" seem to be all the rage lately.

      --
      Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:45PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:45PM (#166740) Journal

        Took me a moment, but I finally got it. Except for "H982 FLK" -- can you help me out here?

        • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:15PM

          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:15PM (#166748) Homepage

          Supposedly, when they took the car for filming to Argentina, the Argentines got upset because they thought it was an overt reference to the 1982 Falkland War.

          However, Argentina does have a track record of going out of their way to be highly offended over the Falklands.

          --
          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @01:16AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @01:16AM (#166809)

            It was clearly a reference to the war. Top Gear has a history of being totally un-politically-correct - that is (was?) part of it's charm. They're not racist, they take the mick out of everyone equally, including themselves. However, when they're called on it they have a nasty habit of denying things which are *obviously* true. What are the chances they got that numberplate by accident? Almost zero.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday April 06 2015, @12:03PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday April 06 2015, @12:03PM (#166926) Homepage
            So is it true that "Malvinas" means "sour grapes" in spanish?
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday April 06 2015, @03:41PM

              by wonkey_monkey (279) on Monday April 06 2015, @03:41PM (#167011) Homepage

              According to Google, "mal viñas" translates as "bad vines" - but it doesn't translate back to the same words.

              The name Malvinas comes from the original French name.

              --
              systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:27PM (#166753)

        So in other words, only government-approved messages allowed. What a nice system. Either allow everything or allow nothing; this is nonsense.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:47PM

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:47PM (#166707) Journal

      If someone owns a printing business, are they obligated to print pretty color brochures for the KKK? Of course not; they're allowed to turn them away,

      Apparently not any more.

      Maybe you weren't playing attention to the whole Indiana brouhaha. Objections on purely religious (and by extension, political) grounds are no longer sufficient to allow your printing company to refuse specific requests.

      Don't get me wrong, this isn't necessarily all bad. If religious preferences are to be kicked to the curb, we no longer need pretend that religious expression is deserving of government protection any more.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by mr_mischief on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:54PM

        by mr_mischief (4884) on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:54PM (#166709)

        IANAL but I'm not so sure it's that black and white. The complaints so far have been over whether a business will sell to a particular party. None of it AFAICT has gone into the specifics of making a business sell specifically offense items. There's a big difference between a printer having to take on business from a gay couple to make wedding invitations and the specific request of a brochure or flyer for a dominatrix's dungeon of sexual torture.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:17PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:17PM (#166723) Journal

          Who says there is a difference between the two examples you offer? They are different, because YOU SAY SO? Well - my opinion is worth as much as yours is, and I say there is no difference.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @12:11AM

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday April 06 2015, @12:11AM (#166801)

            In Indiana, there might not legally be a difference, but in many other states, sexual orientation is a protected class, and you're not allowed to discriminate based on that alone. So they're different because *the government says so*, and yes, their opinion is worth more than yours.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:48AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:48AM (#166832)

              Their opinion is merely backed up by force, so expect their wishes to come true far more often. Actual value (the worth of an opinion) is subjective.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:22PM

          by frojack (1554) on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:22PM (#166729) Journal

          The complaints so far have been over whether a business will sell to a particular party.

          Actually the complaint was over the refusal to put two groom figurines on the cake.

          The cases were all "bait cases". Bride and groom, or groom and groom, never show up to buy their own cake these days. The wedding planner or does that stuff.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 3, Touché) by FakeBeldin on Monday April 06 2015, @02:56PM

            by FakeBeldin (3360) on Monday April 06 2015, @02:56PM (#166992) Journal

            I showed up to buy my own wedding cake.
            As a matter of fact, I showed up twice (there were three cakes, and I could only manage two in one go).

            I guess two wrongs make a right, so you're still in the clear?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:46PM (#167881)

              I showed up to buy my wedding cake too, so we're back to the GP being wrong on that :p.
              (although I don't actually remember the figures on the cake, I do remember it tasting pretty good!)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:49PM (#166741)

        Nobody is trying to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against the KKK. They are trying to use it as an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals. You can't "choose" to be homosexual (or to be heterosexual, or to not be hetero/homosexual), so that necessarily falls into the classes that must be protected against discrimination; being in the KKK, however, is a willful choice. Holding your choices against you is not discrimination. Choice is what makes the difference here.

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:30PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:30PM (#166754)

          Even if you could choose to be a homosexual or heterosexual, it would still be utterly irrational to discriminate since it would be a completely harmless choice.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:28PM (#166770)

          > Nobody is trying to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against the KKK.

          Hence the insertion of the totally bogus "and by extension political grounds." Without that specious extension his entire argument falls apart.

          BTW, religious justifications [aclu.org] were used to deny mixed race marriages back in the day.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:36PM (#166758)

        > Objections on purely religious (and by extension, political)

        What do you mean "by extension?" The bill said nothing about political reasons.
        Also, the bill was passed.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @12:07AM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday April 06 2015, @12:07AM (#166800)

        I was paying attention, but I (caution: IANAL) don't think the KKK case is the same. For one thing, in many places, homosexuals are a protected class, so you're not allowed to just discriminate against them based on that. The whole "religious freedom" thing was about Christians trying to justify disciminating against homosexuals only because supposedly homosexuality is against their religion (then again, so is being of a different religion, but they don't seem to discriminate against other Christian sects...).

        With the KKK, for one thing that's not a protected class at all. Secondly, being a KKK member isn't involuntary like being homosexual or female or black: it's a voluntary organization. Finally, discriminating against them isn't a religious matter at all; I don't dislike the KKK because of any religious values, but based on purely humanist values I abhor them and their positions and actions. My understanding is that businesses are allowed to discriminate against customers, as long as it isn't just because of them being part of some protected class. They can't say "no blacks served here", but if you're black and you're being disruptive or rude to other customers, they can force you to leave, for example.

        Any lawyers have any input here?

    • (Score: 2) by Aichon on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:19PM

      by Aichon (5059) on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:19PM (#166725)

      If someone owns a printing business, are they obligated to print pretty color brochures for the KKK?

      Yes, in most places they are. It's considered discriminatory to refuse to serve them.

      The recent Indiana thing was about signing into law the right for businesses to turn away customers, presumably for religious reasons. And that law is considered rather controversial, since it's being used to turn away gay customers, such as at bakeries making wedding cakes. It's one thing for a print shop to turn away someone because they have a policy of refusing to print racist statements, but if the KKK just wants to advertise their Second Annual Pizza Party and Recruitment Drive, without placing any overtly racist statements on the flier they want printed, does a print shop actually have the right to refuse them?

      Maybe in Indiana, but not in most places.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by M. Baranczak on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:01PM

        by M. Baranczak (1673) on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:01PM (#166743)

        You're wrong. As a general rule, it's legal to discriminate, unless specifically prohibited. If you have an apartment for rent, you can't say "no Jews or Niggers", but you can say "no Red Sox fans", and there's nothing anyone can do about that. Race, religion and nationality are protected from discrimination pretty much all over the country, but for other categories it varies. In Indiana, sexual orientation was never a "protected category"; so the good Christian businessmen of that state already had the right to turn away sodomites if they wanted to. And I don't think there's any jurisdiction that bans anti-KKK discrimination.

        Side note: I hereby announce that my conscience doesn't allow me to write server-side software for same-sex weddings. Or Star Wars themed weddings, for that matter. I ask my brothers in Christ to give me their full support, and raise money to offset the resulting loss of income. [nbcnews.com]

        And all this has fuck-all to do with the original subject, which is license plates.

        • (Score: 2) by Aichon on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:07PM

          by Aichon (5059) on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:07PM (#166745)

          In Indiana, sexual orientation was never a "protected category"; so the good Christian businessmen of that state already had the right to turn away sodomites if they wanted to.

          If that's true, then what's the recent brouhaha over the new law all about? Why would they need a law to make legal something that was already legal?

          • (Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:20PM

            by M. Baranczak (1673) on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:20PM (#166751)

            Good question. A lot of it is just hot air, from both sides. They didn't "need" this law, they were just pissed off because the courts legalized gay marriage in the state. I don't think there was a lot of legal thought that went into this bill, somebody just wrote it on a cocktail napkin and before you know it, it got passed.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:36PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:36PM (#166781)

              I think it is a pre-emptive attack against gender becoming a protected class.

              If they get laws like this on the books that will make it just that much harder to pass anti-discrimination laws. For example its legal to fire someone for being gay in about 30 states today. That is not going to stand, enough 20-somethings find that idea to be abhorrent. Laws like this will need to be dismantled in the process. They will still be dismantled, its just more work.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:15PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:15PM (#166778)

          They amended it to be creed as well. Basically you do not get to discriminate.

          http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/ [archives.gov]

          The whole thing will blow over once it hits the courts. As it is breaks federal law. Typically federal law trumps state.

          but for other categories it varies
          At that point federal steps in. It is very clear. Do not discriminate. Even if they are a red sox fan.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @09:37PM (#166783)

            Typically federal law trumps state.

            How so? What about the 9th amendment? The constitution is set up so that the federal government can only do what the constitution says it can, while all other powers are reserved for the people and the states.

            • (Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Monday April 06 2015, @01:42AM

              by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday April 06 2015, @01:42AM (#166812)

              You think it really works that way? You're new here aren't you.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @05:36AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @05:36AM (#166853)

                When you understand Constitutional Law, then it makes sense. When you don't, you get to be all emo and shit and be whiny and nihilistic.

    • (Score: 2) by BK on Monday April 06 2015, @02:49AM

      by BK (4868) on Monday April 06 2015, @02:49AM (#166833)

      The issue here is whether the government can assist some political speech but not other political speech. There'd be no case at all if other private orgs hadn't already been allowed a platform for their own speech.

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 1) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday April 06 2015, @08:16AM

      by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday April 06 2015, @08:16AM (#166889)

      If someone owns a printing business, are they obligated to print pretty color brochures for the KKK?

      Surely they'd specify pretty white brochures? Even if it makes them harder to read.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:34PM

    by frojack (1554) on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:34PM (#166703) Journal

    But then in a truly civil society people also wouldn't feel the need to broadcast their opinions everywhere they go.

    In a truly civil society people wouldn't feel any need NOT to broadcast their opinions. FIFY.

    People are expected to have opinions and preferences. In a civil society people are expected to tolerate or ignore expression of same by others.
    But the sooner you disabuse yourself of these expectations, especially the latter, the happier you will be.

    Bringing it back around to Vanity plates, typically these are simply letters and numbers that the owner prefers, sometimes and inside joke, sometimes just something easier to remember. Most states have veto power over what goes on these plates.

    Once you get to specify your own images on the plate, those are theme plates, which typically aren't done as one-offs for Joe Sixpack, but might be available as a state sponsored promotions [wa.gov], (Veterans, Teams, Universities, etc). I would expect more restrictions on this type of plate than simple personalized plates. They do have to be readable after all.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by draconx on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:30PM

      by draconx (4649) on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:30PM (#166733)

      People are expected to have opinions and preferences. In a civil society people are expected to tolerate or ignore expression of same by others.

      Those are not the only options. In a free society we must also be able to disagree with someone's speech, and express that disagreement. But maybe a "free" society is different from a "civil" one.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:10PM (#166746)

      In a truly civil society people wouldn't feel any need NOT to broadcast their opinions.

      So long as they're valid opinions, thats what we have now. The problem is, some people think that the idea that skin color, gender, and/or sexual orientation must be the same as theirs in order for a person to be human, and that people with different skin colors, genders, and/or sexual orientation aren't even human and deserve to be murdered or enslaved, is a valid opinion to have.

      I have yet to hear a logically consistent explanation for how being a member of my species requires one to have a specific amount of melanin, a specific set of genitals, or to only love or engage in recreational activities with people of a specific gender.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:21PM (#166752)

        Just to be clear here, they can think whatever they want, but the key here is "deserve to be murdered or enslaved", eg, they are of the opinion that everyone they consider to be subhuman should be wiped from existence or enslaved. So long as their "opinion" is that certain people should not have freedom or life based on factors that are outside of everyone's control, it is invalid. Simply not liking or not wanting to be around certain people because of those factors would be fine, but wanting to deprive others of their freedom or life because of factors outside of their control is not.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:33PM (#166757)

          So long as their "opinion" is that certain people should not have freedom or life based on factors that are outside of everyone's control, it is invalid.

          I do not agree with their opinion either, but it is a subjective matter.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @10:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @10:12PM (#166790)

      "The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom." --Claudia Alta Taylor Johnson

      "Life is politics. If you choose not to engage, you lose by forfeit." --gewg_

      .
      Quasi-related:
      In the case of the New Hampshire guy who put tape on his license plate to cover "Live Free or Die" [wikipedia.org]

      In a 6-to-3 decision, [SCOTUS] held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates.

      William Rehnquist (ever the authoritarian) dissented.

      .
      About the flag:
      The one most commonly thought of as "The Confederate Flag" [usflag.org] gets called "The Stars and Bars" by some.
      THAT IS THE NAME OF A DIFFERENT FLAG. [usflag.org]
      Even the Confederate Battle Flag ("The Southern Cross") was a different thing from the typical representation; the actual item had 4 equal edges.

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: 4, Touché) by nukkel on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:06PM

    by nukkel (168) on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:06PM (#166764)

    Common sense says anyone stupid enough to put any political speech on their vehicle (thus inviting anonymous vandalism/damage to said vehicle in the form of keying, tire slashing, etc) deserves what they get.

    Would I prefer to live in a society where people were above such petty acts? Sure. But then in a truly civil society people also wouldn't feel the need to broadcast their opinions everywhere they go.

    Common sense says any girl stupid enough to put any sexy clothing on their body (thus inviting anonymous assault/rape to said body in the form of groping, etc) deserves what they get.

    Would I prefer to live in a society where people were above such petty acts? Sure. But then in a truly civil society girls also wouldn't feel the need to broadcast their sex appeal everywhere they go.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:15AM (#166872)

      Nice false analogy, calling it victim blaming. Its not victim blaming when people give racists a taste of what those assholes want to do to people of other races, that's just the extension of the Golden Rule in action - "Do unto others as they have done (or will do if given a chance) unto you". A better analogy would be that its like a rape victim raping their rapist. Its not even a "chicken and egg" problem, the racists are the ones spreading the hate and deserve to reap what they sow.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:05PM (#166927)

        Its not victim blaming when people give racists a taste of what those assholes want to do to people of other races

        When you say, "X did Y, so they *deserved* Z!", that is victim blaming, whether or not the person is a Bad Person (TM) or not. No, someone expressing a certain opinion that most of us find disgusting does not give you the right to vandalize their property. And rape is disgusting, so you don't get to go and rape people as revenge, either. Nice revenge mentality you have there.

        "Do unto others as they have done (or will do if given a chance) unto you"

        Religious trash.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @03:08PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @03:08PM (#166997)

          When you say, "X did Y, so they *deserved* Z!", that is victim blaming

          "You drove to the store, you deserved that donut!"
          "You flew that plane, you deserved to land it!"
          "You hit that guy, you deserved to be hit back!"
          "You killed that guy, you deserve to be killed!"

          Nope, can't say I agree with your blanket statement. The key word here is "victim" - its not possible to "victim blame" when there's no victim, and the perpetrators are not victims when they're receiving what they dole out.