preview

Theu.s. V. Texas Division, Sons Of Confederate Veterans, Inc.

Good Essays
Open Document

United States Supreme Court John Walker, III, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Board, et al., Petitioners v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., et al. Appealed from the United States Court of Appeals 5th Circuit Statement of the Case This case seeks to protect the right to “free speech,” as is granted to through the 1st amendment, and affirmed by the (insert court here), in regards to specialty or vanity license plates. The 1st amendment reads as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of …show more content…

The 1st amendment protects US citizens, both natural born and naturalized, from undue censorship by the state and federal government in the free speech clause. The 1st amendment is only compromised in the event of national security, which is supported in Schenk v. United States and affirmed in Abrams v. United States 250 U.S. 616 (1919). Government speech has been assumed in situations where government funding is involved, however, there has been an expectation of private speech in those areas as well. Private speech and government speech often exist in the same spheres, where government speech cannot prevail without trampling the other, and private speech cannot exist wholly without government permission where federal funding is found. An example of this is found in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, where the Court ruled that the University of Virginia’s refusal to fund student Rosenberger’s publication Wide Awake: A Christian’s Perspective to the University of Virginia was a violation of free speech. Despite the University being a federally and publically funded institution, private speech discussing religion is permitted in the same space as government speech, on the grounds of ensuring equality across the campus. The Court found that if the University was funding secular student magazines publications were being funded, it would only be equal if religious publications received funding. The Court ruled also that the funding of

Get Access
Related
Get Access