Recently,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that it is
constitutional for Texas to issue a license plate with the Confederate flag
printed on it. The court made this decision based on the First Amendment, which
allows for the freedom of speech. Those who support being able to print
Confederate flags on license plate say that it is a symbol of a past heritage,
sacrifice, and independence. I do not agree with this view. Many people view
the time of the Confederacy to be a time of racism and oppression that should
not be praised or glorified. Those who choose to display this flag on their
license plate seem to give off the message that they approve of a time in
history in which slavery was popular and the federal government was condemned.
Though I cannot speak for all people who have a confederate flag displayed
somewhere, many people who do this still do not believe that desegregation
should be put in place and are often thought of as being racist. This causes a
problem between if this type of display should be allowed. There is not a doubt
in my mind that if a state decided to print a swastika on their license plate
there would be tons of back lash, and I honestly do not believe that a court
would even try to say it is protected under the first amendment.
I believe that the use of the Confederate flag
on license plates should not be allowed. Yes, supporters of the Confederacy
have waved their flag in front of their lawns or put bumper stickers on their
cars, but it seems much worse to have a state allow and take part in making
sure people can display this on license plates. It gives off the idea that the
state does not care if people are racist or want to rebel against the
government. Furthermore, I believe this case involves a much deeper look at the
First Amendment and whether a future amendment could be added that takes into
account hate speech that is directed toward group of oppressed people.
1 comment:
Although I completely agree with the author in the article (Cassandra Najera, The Texas Talk, 7/25/14) and with the notion that the Confederate flag is undoubtedly a painful memory for many of those who suffered in the name of slavery can have many meanings for the people of Southern Heritage. I have to contest the point that the government must do something about it or ban it on the basis of it being hurtful to the feelings of many. The government has stated in the first amendment that they should provide full liberty and freedom of speech to all. Therefore to contest on the basis of the usage of the symbol or the flag, is merely useless if it holds varying individual perceptions.
An example can be used from recent history, the attack of 9/11 have hurtful memories for many. In turn this has created an upheaval where a certain group of Muslims have claimed responsibility for these actions. Although the citizens of the United States have been outraged by this particular event, Muslims in the United States still have the freedom to preach and practice their customs. Now one may argue that because one sect of their religion has committed a heinous crime, that they all be punished by not giving them their freedom of speech or by letting them practice the customs of their forefathers. Such is the case for the Southern pride, although it may signify for many the events of slavery, it could also be that Southerners are showing their pride.
Furthermore I agree when the author points out that if a Swastika was posted on the bumper of a car that wouldn't be received well. However those are two different scenarios, which possibly can’t be compared in terms of cruelty. In the article when the author mentions that the state doesn't care, it does, it just wants to keep an open mind to people’s opinions and respect their culture. Not everyone that has a Confederate flag can be considered racist. Therefore we should stop stereotyping on the account of others behaviors.
As much as I understand the sentiments of the author, I feel that in order to evaluate whether the government should revise the first amendment is out the question simply because the author states that action should be taken against hate speech. However this is not considered hate speech when it is well within the law of the state and it just merely consists of people taking pride in their culture. Furthermore surely the government has evaluated that minorities will always feel oppressed, therefore a certain flag won’t make much of a difference. Thus I feel that the decision of the state and government aligns to that of providing the freedom of speech and turning our backs to those that don’t fit our mindset. In this passive resistance manner no racism or hatred towards any such group will exist.
Post a Comment