However, the Sons of Confederate Veterans claim that the states are trying to “erase history” and refuse to recognize it’s association to slavery and racism.
The Confederate flag was also seen at the attack on the Capitol where a man ran through the halls carrying the flag. It is evident that the Confederate flag holds a darker history than what its supporters claim.
As Southern states continue to remove the Confederate flag, the Sons of Confederate Veterans continue to push back, as seen in the Walker v. Texas Division case that decided that Texas had not discriminated against the Sons of Confederate Veterans when refusing license plates to bear the Confederate flag.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans claimed this infringed upon their First Amendment rights, but the case decided that license plates constituted speech by the government, and Texas had already decided the Confederate flag sent an offensive message.
However, the Sons of Confederate Veterans were not prohibited from displaying their flag elsewhere, but could not obligate Texas to display their symbol, which mirrors the precedent set by Wooley v. Maynard that states the state could not obligate its citizens to display their state motto.
The Walker v. Texas Division now sets a precedent for other states to also discontinue Confederate flag license plates.
The debate over the specifics of First Amendment rights expands to several cases. Donald Trump along with other conservatives also argued they were being “censored” after several social media accounts were suspended or deactivated under the suspicion that they were inciting the attack on the Capitol. However, it was not the government censoring the conservatives, but private networks, although the government has a right under the precedent set by Schenck v. US the First Amendment speech protection could be restricted if they presented a “clear and present danger.”
But, to what extent can the US apply the precedent set by Schenck v. US? Especially if there is a constant debate about whether something is associated with hate or history like the Confederate flag?
And, to what extent are First Amendment rights protected by private networks and social media apps such as Twitter?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/us/north-carolina-confederate-license-plate.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/supreme-court-says-texas-can-reject-confederate-flag-license-plates.html
5 comments:
I remember reading in the textbook recently that there was a Supreme Court case that, if I’m not mistaken, forbade the federal government to declare what were hate crimes and left that responsibility up to the states. However, that is a power that the states maintain (I’m not sure where the legal basis for this is, but I think that’s the case anyway). I don’t think these license plates fall under the purview of hate crimes, but it’s similar in that it is state responsibility whether to create state-endorsed license plates that have offensive messages. Thus, these protestors are correct in saying aht their 1st amendment rights are restricted but not in that it is illegal with our current laws and federalism. Along those lines, I’m not sure if these license plates fall under the legal relevance of Schneck vs. U.S. because a “clear and present danger” usually refers to physical danger and anti-government actions. It’s harder to prove that offensive displays will result in such dangers. Still, states can regulate their own property and responsibilities of driving plates.
According to the textbook, if North Carolina officially classified the confederate flag as “offensive,” then this this flag is technically “obscene,” which is one of the limitations to the freedom of expression part of the first amendment. Logically, this would mean that the Sons of Confederate had no case. However, it is important to note that in Erznoznik v Jacksonville, the Supreme Court limited the State’s ability to tightly control what was deemed as “offensive.” In this case, the general idea that all movies that contained nudity should not be shown in public places was shot down because nudity was too vague and include things that are not traditionally offensive, like war victims. However, in Walker v Texas Division, it seems that this case is very specific to the confederate flag, which may make it easier to deem as “offensive,” as it doesn’t limit the free expression of other images. It’s also important to recognize that definitions such as “offensive” are very hard to be applied in cases, as they are very much up to one’s values and biases.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans claim the states are trying to "erase history." I feel like this is a flawed argument because history is not stored with in license plates. To erase history would be to stop teaching about civil rights in school and teaching a glorified version of American History. Confederate flags on license plates only illustrate continued support for a racist confederacy. The people above me already proved it is with in states right to remove these plate. The troubling thought is that while this apparent racism will be removed, those who drive around with these types of plates will still have their misguided, misinformed perspectives. I understand it is hard to admit that you are in the wrong, and that in this case, their ancestors (confederate veterans) were fighting for a racist cause. If only there was a way to teach them about their own history in a way that will correct their understanding of the civil war. I think a good idea is to rewrite southern textbooks that tell the story of America falsely. Aragon does a good job teaching students about American History, if only southern high schools could do the same.
In announcing the removal of the Confederate flag from North Carolina's license plates, the spokesperson explains their intentions, stating that the display of the flag had the potential to offend people, and thus, was not protected by the First Amendment right. I completely agree with Michael that this flag holds so much racist history, and so many people are uneducated on or choose to ignore its ties to slavery. I remember reading before that a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to ban the display of Confederate flags on their license plates, in the court case Walker v Texas. While Justice Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan agreed that it constituted governmental speech and thus Texas could prohibit it, dissenting opinion from the 4 other judges stated that since this design was proposed by the SCV, that it was private speech, not government speech.
I agree with the idea that since license plates are government property, Texas and other states in general have a right to control what is displayed on those plates, & I hope that the display of Confederate flags is held unconstitutional universally.
Post a Comment