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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.