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.
As explained by the authors Jonathan I. Leib and Gerald R. Webster. The article states,” The Battle Flag remained above the state capitol dome until 1987 when it, the Alabama state flag, and the U.S. flag were removed to allow planned renovations of the building. As the renovations were proceeding multiple lawsuits were filed to prevent the Battle Flag from again being placed on the capitol dome. After two failures in federal court, plaintiffs were successful in a state court suit. Employing an 1895 state law that only required the U.S. and Alabama flags to fly above the capitol, the state judge hearing the case ordered the Battle Flag not be replaced on the dome.” “The judge's decision led to demonstrations, scores of critical letters to the editor in the state's newspapers, and a legal appeal by the state's Republican Governor, Guy Hunt. The appeals process was not yet complete when Governor Hunt was removed from office because of ethics violations and replaced by Democratic Lieutenant Governor James Folsom, Jr. Governor Folsom subsequently withdrew the appeal and issued an executive order that the Battle Flag not be returned to the capitol dome. The new governor's actions set off an additional round of controversy and criticism including a Ku Klux Klan rally in Montgomery to demand the flag again be placed above the capitol dome.” How ever to this day the “Confederate Battle Flag” is displayed in the chambers of the State House of Representatives where it has flown for several decades. Even after many attempts to remove it from the chambers the flag can still be found
For example. in 2014, California governor banned state agencies from selling or displaying the Confederate flag. Many schools across the country have banned the Confederate flag, with one North Carolinian high school saying, it had the potential to disrupt “the education process” of fellow students and ability to “intimidate other students on the basis of race [or] color…” One case of this nature made it to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Defoe v. Spiva, a school ban on the confederate flag was upheld because the court said that “school officials reasonably forecast that permitting displays of the Confederate flag would result in substantial disruption of, or material interference with, the school environment.” These bans have been challenged on a federal level before, however. In Defoe v. Spiva, a school ban on the Confederate flag was upheld because the court said that “school officials reasonably forecast that permitting displays of the Confederate flag would result in substantial disruption of, or material interference with, the school environment.” This decision represents the system of federal and state regulation within the courts, and may exhibit the way this relationship will work in the
Is America more racist now than it was 60 years ago? Of course not, yet America is more polarized than it’s ever been. Even on issues that are mere trifles, Americans cannot seem to agree upon anything. One of these seemingly pointless issues is whether the rectangular Second Confederate Navy Jack and the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia, or as many people call the “confederate flag”, should be banned. It is difficult to discern what exactly set off this movement, the fact of the matter is that the confederate flag has been used for years with no apparent backlash, but has become an issue of controversy. This debate has raised legitimate concern especially in regards to its use amongst federal institutions such as South Carolina flying it over the State House. However, this movement has pushed its way past that into the personal realm. Many have come to the belief that it must be banned on all accounts. Certainly, believing in something enough to fight for it is admirable— something that truly defines what the USA stands for; however, when emotion is used to wrongfully conclude, and in this case, ban a flag without true factual evidence, there becomes a problem. The basis of this argument is that the flag inherently represents racism due to the Southern United States’ history of slavery. This thesis, although noble in motive, neglects the facts of history and logic. The “confederate flag” should not be banned on a personal basis because it would wrongfully and fictitiously
The Confederate flag has been a topic of controversy in the United States for many years. It and other symbols of the Confederacy are parts of many state flags in the South and it is even flown at several state buildings throughout the South. To some the Confederate flag is a historical symbol and is believed to be a way of remembering the Civil War that almost tore the nation in two, but to others it represents fear and hatred due to its use by racial hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and it symbolizes the slave-holding South that existed prior to the Civil War. Such a controversial symbol should not be flown on state grounds, but also should not be forgotten. State lawmakers should remove the Confederate flag from state buildings and instead erect memorials remembering the Civil War that are jointly Union and Confederate, or museums remembering the war and honoring the thousands of soldiers that died during America’s bloodiest war.
The Confederate flag has engendered controversy among the people of the United States. After the Charleston church shooting of June this year, the Confederate flag flying in South Carolina's capitol has brought about more attention when pictures of the gunman posing with the flag were exposed. Less than a month later, a ceremony was held to finally remove the flag, where more than 10,000 people stood by cheering it on. In more recent news, a law has been proposed to eliminate the flag indefinitely by prohibiting its use. Through this law, we are slowing fighting the racism in this country.
Why is the Confederate flag not allowed in schools today? The confederate flag has created a great deal of controversy in public places. The controversy is whether it is allowed to be displayed or not, and that goes back to if it is racist or hateful toward a certain group of people in some way. Some places allow it, but Northeast Community School is in fact, against it, as it is stated in their student handbook. Although, some school officials consider the Confederate flag to be disrespectful and racist, the confederate flag should be allowed to be displayed in and on school grounds because it is not racist, it is a civil war battle flag, and if it is not allowed to be displayed at northeast then other flags will have
A new Confederate monument is being built in Texas which demonstrates positively and negatively attributes as mentioned above. I will discuss what was done the right way first. Before building commenced a survey was given to the residents to see if they approved of the project. It received a 74% approval rating. The project is being built on private property and is being funded by a non-government organization. This aspect gives the memorial little added authority. The memorial recognizes the thirty two divisions from Texas that fought in the Civil War. Since being that it is located in Texas, it is relevant to this location. Now, for what the memorial did wrong. Ever since the memorial was announced the local NAACP branch has protested it. Also, it is being built near a highway. Though organizers checked
In Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Supreme Court concerns itself with the constitutionality of a decision by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board (the DMV Board) to reject the specialty license plate designs submitted by the Sons of Confederate Veterans (the SCV) and its members, Accordingly, the case addresses matters pertaining to the First and Fourteenth Amendment. With attorney Scott Keller representing Walker—petitioner—and attorney Roger George representing the SCV—respondent—four issues surround the case: the type of speech expressed through specialty license plates; the State’s discriminatory power over its specialty license plate program; the creation of a limited public forum; and, ultimately,
The flag of the United States is our national symbol and our most important symbol of all; it symbolizes our nation’s strength and pride. Due to its high values and symbolism, by 1932, forty-eight states had adopted the flag desecration laws to legally protect and restrict desecration of the flag of the United States. However, these flag desecration laws only lasted until 1989, because in 1989, in the Texas v Johnson case, the United States Supreme Court recognized that flag desecration as a form of symbolic political speech that is constitutionally protected by First Amendment and agreed that the “government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable”( ).
Thesis – In light of Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., vanity plates can now be considered government speech and subject to more limitations by the
Yes, I know we’ve all been inundated with press coverage over the recent Confederate flag debate, but it’s still an important question worth discussing. I’ve always been interested in the American Civil War and especially the post-war Reconstruction era. I intend to provide a brief history of the Confederate flag and argue that, although individuals have the right to fly any flag they wish, the Confederate flag should not be displayed in
The Confederate Battle Flag was once known as the “Southern Cross” and represented the eleven states in the Confederacy, along with Kentucky and Missouri. The Confederate flag was used to identify the people who still believed in the institution of slavery and did not agree with its abolishment. Additionally, the flag was a popular symbol for white supremacy. With the stigma it possesses, it is not surprising that people today are upset that the flag is still widely flown. This is seen especially when it is showcased on government buildings. A government speaks for the people of that area. By having the flag on its building, it is saying that the people still believe in what the flag represents. There is a lot of controversy regarding the
Although the first amendment was to protect the people from the government censoring their freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceably assemble and grievances however there are some exceptions. The first amendment provides
The Confederate flag after the civil war went from being viewed as the Confederate states battle flag to a flag representing racism. “This “rebel flag” has been displayed as a symbol of racist defiance by Ku Klux Klansmen and others…” (3). The Confederate flag was always debated if it should be flown over state building and buildings “In 1938, the legislature passed a measure, sponsored by Union County representative John D. Long, that mandated that the Confederate battle flag—along with the U.S. and South Carolina flags—be displayed behind the speaker’s desk in the House Chamber” (4). The debate of whether or not their Confederate flag should be flown over state building has been argued since the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and it was only recently brought back up.
The First Amendment was a key component in Reno v. ACLU. It states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The Courts