By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a dispute over a proposed Confederate battle flag license plate, the Supreme Court struggled Monday to balance worries about government censorship and concerns that offensive messages could, at worst, incite violence.

Nearly 150 years after the end of the Civil War, the justices heard arguments in a case over Texas' refusal to issue a license plate bearing the battle flag. Nine other states allow drivers to display plates with the flag, which remains both a potent image of heritage and a racially charged symbol of repression.

Specialty license plates are big business in Texas. They brought in $17.6 million last year and state officials said there are now nearly 450 messages to choose from, from "Choose Life" to the Boy Scouts and hamburger chains.

The state rarely rejects a specialty plate, but it did turn down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag. The group's lawsuit led to Monday's hearing.

The justices seemed uncomfortable with arguments advanced by both sides - the state in defense of its actions, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their appeal for the symbol.

If the court finds the state must permit the battle flag on license plates, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked in a series of questions, would it be forced also to allow plates with a swastika, the word "jihad," and a call to make marijuana legal?

Yes, lawyer R. James George Jr., a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall 45 years ago, responded each time on behalf of the veterans group.

"That's okay? And 'Bong hits for Jesus?'" Ginsburg said, reaching back to an earlier case involving students' speech rights.

Again, George said yes, and remained firm even when Justice Elena Kagan added in "the most offensive racial epithet you can imagine."

Original post:

Justices struggle with free speech case over license plates

Washington The United States Supreme Court began grappling on Monday with a thorny free speech issue: whether a state government can use its authority over specialty license plates to endorse certain messages while censoring others.

The issue arises in a lawsuit filed by the Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who complain that Texas refused to produce and circulate a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate that prominently featured the Confederate battle flag.

A Texas board rejected the license plate because it said many members of the public find the Confederate battle flag offensive.

Only a handful of proposed specialty license plates have ever rejected by Texas.

The state offers more than 400 specialty plates featuring an eclectic range of messages. They include God Bless Texas, Vietnam Veteran, Id Rather Be Golfing, and Mighty Fine Burgers, a commercial plug for an Austin burger establishment of high repute.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) insist that their proposed license plate is not meant to spread fear or hatred. They view the Confederate flag as a symbol of sacrifice, independence, and Southern heritage, and they argue that the state should not be permitted to muzzle that message.

The case is potentially important because it forces the justices to explore a murky First Amendment middle ground between government-permitted censorship of objectionable speech in some limited cases and guarantees of free speech in most cases even when that speech is offensive.

The so-called government speech doctrine allows the government to engage in viewpoint discrimination in its own speech, but it does not allow such discrimination against private speech. Thus, a central question in the case is who is doing the speaking in the production and display of specialty license plates?

Texas approves and issues a specialty license plate containing a particular message. Next, an individual driver pays extra for the plate, attaches it to her vehicle, and displays the message while driving in public.

Is the resulting communication the speech of the government or the speech of the individual driver?

View original post here:

Could Texas have Nazi license plates? Supreme Court hears free speech case. (+video)

This image provided by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles shows the design of a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate. The Supreme Court on March 23, 2015, will weigh a free-speech challenge to Texas decision to refuse to issue a license plate bearing the Confederate battle flag. Specialty plates are big business in Texas, where drivers spent $17.6 million last year to choose from among more than 350 messages the state allows on the plates. TEXASDEPARTMENTOFMOTORVEHICLESAP

WASHINGTON Supreme Court justices on Monday struggled with how far license plates might go if they rule the Sons of Confederate Veterans can get Texas plates imprinted with the Confederate flag.

Pretty far, the Sons of Confederate Veterans attorney conceded, in an exchange that suggested why the group might eventually lose its challenge to Texas denial of its controversial plate request.

Your position is that, if you prevail, a license plate can have a racial slur? asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing vote. Thats your position?

Yes, replied R. James George Jr., the Austin-based attorney representing the Sons of Confederate Veterans, adding that speech that we hate is something we should be proud of protecting.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pressed George with similar examples, asking about specialty license plates imprinted with a swastika, an encouragement to commit jihad or the phrases Make Pot Legal or Bong Hits for Jesus. In each case, George said Texas should be obliged to print the plate if requested to.

I dont think the government can discriminate against content, George said.

Texas officials, though, say theyre free to regulate the speech thats conveyed through a government-issued medium.

The government is entitled to select the messages that it wishes to propagate, Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller said Texas does not have to associate itself with messages that it doesnt want to and finds offensive.

The Texas specialty license plate program now includes more than 400 permitted messages, Keller reported Monday. Some messages are authorized by the state Legislature and others are applied for through the Texas Department of Transportation.

Here is the original post:

Texas license plate case pits free speech vs. hate speech

The U.S. Supreme Court takes up a free speech case on whether Texas was wrong in rejecting a specialty vehicle license plate displaying the Confederate flag to some an emblem of Southern pride and to others a symbol of racism. Photo by Texas Department of Motor Vehicles/Handout via Reuters

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court is weighing a free-speech challenge to Texas refusal to issue a license plate bearing the Confederate battle flag.

Specialty plates are big business in Texas, where drivers spent $17.6 million last year to choose from among more than 350 messages the state allows. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles says nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate.

But a state motor vehicle board turned down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy, as well as Maryland.

The justices are hearing arguments Monday over whether the state violated the groups First Amendment rights.

Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, but it says that putting the battle flag on license plates would offend many Texans who believe the flag is a racially charged symbol of repression. The same image is etched on a century-old Civil War monument on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. ORourke.

In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health however odorous the products of a democracy may be, Hentoff, ORourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

The case could be important for how the Supreme Court determines whether the speech at issue belongs to private individuals or the government.

Texas main argument to the Supreme Court is that the license plate is not like a bumper sticker slapped on the car by its driver. Instead, the state said license plates are government property, and so what appears on them is not private individuals speech but the governments. The First Amendment applies when governments try to regulate the speech of others, but not when governments are doing the talking.

Read the original:

Justices hear free speech dispute over Confederate flag license plate

March 23, 2015: This image provided by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles shows the design of a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate.(AP)

In a dispute over a proposed Confederate battle flag license plate, the Supreme Court struggled Monday to balance worries about government censorship and concerns that offensive messages could, at worst, incite violence.

Nearly 150 years after the end of the Civil War, the justices heard arguments in a case over Texas' refusal to issue a license plate bearing the battle flag. Nine other states allow drivers to display plates with the flag, which remains both a potent image of heritage and a racially charged symbol of repression.

Specialty license plates are big business in Texas. They brought in $17.6 million last year and state officials said there are now nearly 450 messages to choose from, from "Choose Life" to the Boy Scouts and hamburger chains.

The state rarely rejects a specialty plate, but it did turn down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag. The group's lawsuit led to Monday's hearing.

The justices seemed uncomfortable with arguments advanced by both sides -- the state in defense of its actions, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their appeal for the symbol.

If the court finds the state must permit the battle flag on license plates, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked in a series of questions, would it be forced also to allow plates with a swastika, the word "jihad," and a call to make marijuana legal?

Yes, lawyer R. James George Jr., a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall 45 years ago, responded each time on behalf of the veterans group.

"That's okay? And `Bong hits for Jesus?"' Ginsburg said, reaching back to an earlier case involving students' speech rights.

Again, George said yes, and remained firm even when Justice Elena Kagan added in "the most offensive racial epithet you can imagine."

Read the original post:

Justices struggle with free speech case over Confederate license plates