SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:19PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.