Violating free speech

[scooterbug44]

There is a big difference between someone being allowed to display a symbol of hatred because of free speech and putting a symbol of hatred on an official government issued item.

Yes, because of the 1st amendment, they can display this symbol of hatred all they want. They can also say and write horrible things that I would be likewise appalled to see on a license plate.

A government sanctioned display of a symbol of hatred is not okay. That is what putting it on the license plate is and why other people who want to remember that period of history with an inoffensive license plate have chosen other iconography.

We can quibble about what the flag means to different people, but at the end of the day it unfortunately still remains a well recognized symbol of intolerance and evil and as such is not a good choice for a license plate.

 

[LuciferSam]

This is just the state using a little common sense. I would not want to bear the shame of being on the committee that approved of the stars and bars tag.

 

[30ashopper]

There is a big difference between someone being allowed to display a symbol of hatred because of free speech and putting a symbol of hatred on an official government issued item.

Yes, because of the 1st amendment, they can display this symbol of hatred all they want. They can also say and write horrible things that I would be likewise appalled to see on a license plate.

A government sanctioned display of a symbol of hatred is not okay. That is what putting it on the license plate is and why other people who want to remember that period of history with an inoffensive license plate have chosen other iconography.

We can quibble about what the flag means to different people, but at the end of the day it unfortunately still remains a well recognized symbol of intolerance and evil and as such is not a good choice for a license plate.

Remember, it's only a symbol of hatred for some, others look upon it differently. There's no way to decide which party is right on the issue, since both views are based entirely on enterpretation of the message. Therefore I don't think one side has the right to restrict the other's free expression.

 

[scooterbug44]

It is a commonly recognized symbol of hate, just at the swastika is a commonly recognized symbol of hate.

Just because some do not see it as such does not change its meaning or the appropriateness of it being on a license plate.

 

[30ashopper]

It is a commonly recognized symbol of hate, just at the swastika is a commonly recognized symbol of hate.

Just because some do not see it as such does not change its meaning or the appropriateness of it being on a license plate.

I take issue with that as I don't feel it's true. Regardless again your view is based purely on your perceptions. That doesn't give you the right to restrict people from displaying it.

 

[PearlSB4U]

Remember, it's only a symbol of hatred for some, others look upon it differently. There's no way to decide which party is right on the issue, since both views are based entirely on enterpretation of the message. Therefore I don't think one side has the right to restrict the other's free expression.

To Michael Jackson & the Man-Boy Love Community, "love of children" is simply innocent "love of children." Our society, however, has a consensus view that is different.
Should we let the Man-Boy Love Community have their own license plate logo if they can get the required no. of petitioners?

 

[scooterbug44]

I take issue with that as I don't feel it's true. Regardless again your view is based purely on your perceptions. That doesn't give you the right to restrict people from displaying it.

Yes, you (and many others) do not feel that is true, but the majority of people do.

I am not advocating restricting people from displaying it.

I am advocating that the government should not display it.

 

[LuciferSam]

The state government doesn't even have to allow specialty tags in the first place. Would that be a restriction of freedom? I think not.

In this case tt worst they could be accused of being biased, but I don't see it. Is there a "You lost get over it" tag aimed against the Confederacy that I'm not aware of?

 

[30ashopper]

To Michael Jackson & the Man-Boy Love Community, "love of children" is simply innocent "love of children." Our society, however, has a consensus view that is different.
Should we let the Man-Boy Love Community have their own license plate logo if they can get the required no. of petitioners?

Well I guess it depends on the message. I do think the state should draw the line on certain things that can effect people who see the plates, especially children. Sexually explicit language would be an understandable restriction, or a message blatantly promoting some sort of violent act. But I wouldn't take issue with a "man-boy rights" plate just like I wouldn't take issue with a "gay rights" plate. Tolerating such messages in public is what freedom of speech is all about.

Generally I don't feel these plates reflect on anyone but the person using them. This idea that this somehow reflects on the entire population or the state is silly. It's just another veiled attempt at forcing people to be politically correct.

 

[30ashopper]

The state government doesn't even have to allow specialty tags in the first place. Would that be a restriction of freedom? I think not.

In this case tt worst they could be accused of being biased, but I don't see it. Is there a "You lost get over it" tag aimed against the Confederacy that I'm not aware of?

Equal treatment under the law? If you're going to deny someone from having a plate they've met all the requirements for (with the minor exceptions I previously noted) then you should stop allowing custom plates entirely.