WASHINGTON The U.S. Supreme Court wrestled Monday with whether free speech rights require Texas to accept all messages even deeply offensive ones on its specialty license plates, a decision that could prompt the state to kill the program.

The justices faced conflicting arguments from Texas officials who say they should control all plate content and a Southern historical group that says its proposal for a Confederate battle flag tag cannot be censored.

Texas rejected the Sons of Confederate Veterans request for a flag plate, saying many consider it racist and a hurtful reminder of slavery. The group sued, saying the state discriminated against those who believe the banner honors Confederate soldiers sacrifice, independence and heritage.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the veterans group attorney, R. James George Jr. of Austin, whether he believed the state under the First Amendment must approve all messages no matter how objectionable.

What about, she said, a plate featuring a swastika? An outright racial slur? Or simply the word jihad?

Justice Anthony Kennedy pressed harder. Yes or no, he asked George. Must the state put those symbols or messages on the plates at the request of the citizen? Yes or no?

Georges answer: Yes.

That seemed to go too far for some on the court, which is deciding for the first time whether states can legally reject some license plates and approve others, based on officials judgment on whether they could be considered offensive.

Justice Antonin Scalia said that if states are forced to accept even the most outrageous messages, they may scrap specialty plate programs.

Youre really arguing for the abolition of Texas specialty plates, arent you? Scalia asked George. I couldnt make a better argument for in that direction than what youve been doing.

Follow this link:

Supreme Court justices question both sides on Texas Confederate plate issue