preview

Sons Of Confederate Veterans

Decent Essays

FACTS: Lay out the facts of the case. (200 words) Sons of Confederate Veterans proposed a specialty plate designed that entailed the confederate flag. The message behind the confederate flag can be viewed as offensive to citizens. Sons of Confederate Veterans filed a suit against the Chairman and Board stating that it violated the Free Speech Clause. The District Court entered judgment but The Fifth Circuit reversed holding that Texas specialty plate designs are private speech and that the Board engaged in constitutionally forbidden viewpoint discrimination. Texas specialty plates constitutes government speech, the content in which the State is free to control, thus based on the dissenting Judge`s remarks, the State was entitled to refuse …show more content…

(2015). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf) ISSUE: Identify the legal issue. (50 words) The legal issue with the case is government speech. The proposed designed plate is The Sons of Confederate Veterans considers the design as private speech which is viewed by them as a violation of the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. The State views any license plate design as government speech. (Supreme Court. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf RULE: What provision of the First Amendment applies to the issue you have defined? (50 words) The First Amendment, in substance, does not provide absolute protection for all forms of speech, press, assembly, petition and association. It is not absolute. As a balance for interest of speech against competing government interest, an evolution of balancing tests were created and modified by the Supreme Court hence the Free Speech Clause. (Hall & FELDMEIER, 2012, Chapter 9: The Scope and Substance of the First Amendment). ANALYZE: Analyze the case, applying the law to the facts of the case. (300 …show more content…

Texas specialty license plates are not a traditional or designated public forum. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., which covers the violation of the Establishment Clause. Granted this case does not involve religion but it does portray an emblem that can be viewed as offensive to citizens like that of religion. Since the design is viewed by the organization as private speech that is occurring on government property, there are restrictions. See the Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc. case which covers section 9.4(d) of the First Amendment under the Public vs. Non public forum. License plates are designated as historical properties. The State of Texas exercises the authorities over the messages that are conveyed on the specialty plates. Even though private parties are given permission to partake in a design, the propagation of a message does not extinguish the governmental nature nor does it change the government’s role into a mere forum provider. Drivers who display the a State`s selected license plate design convey the messages communicated through the design. See the Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 717, n.

Get Access