Redskins name Banned?

[Pakuni]

Not to pick nits, but only one of those is a supreme court decision and that one was a decision around the state and an organization with a design. Not a private citizen choosing to select letters/numbers that created something offensive.

Well, what the Supreme Court says is law, so there really doesn't need to be more than one Supreme Court ruling, unless they see need to clarify on another case brought before them. Although the specifics of that case involve one state and one particular message, it applies to all.

Apples and oranges to the trademark decision around Washington's nickname.

Oh, I agree, but since you guys started talking about how the principle ought to be the same for license plates ....

[mu03eng]

Well, what the Supreme Court says is law, so there really doesn't need to be more than one Supreme Court ruling, unless they see need to clarify on another case brought before them. Although the specifics of that case involve one state and one particular message, it applies to all.
Oh, I agree, but since you guys started talking about how the principle ought to be the same for license plates ....

Let me rephrase.....there is one supreme court ruling in the license plate area of concern but is not related to the original conceit....that if a person(not an organization or corporation) wanted to sue the state for violation of their 1st amendment protections because the state would not allow them their primary choice of customization.

So, while interesting, the articles you've provided do nothing to prove my original statement incorrect

[Pakuni]

Let me rephrase.....there is one supreme court ruling in the license plate area of concern but is not related to the original conceit....that if a person(not an organization or corporation) wanted to sue the state for violation of their 1st amendment protections because the state would not allow them their primary choice of customization.

So, while interesting, the articles you've provided do nothing to prove my original statement incorrect

I'm not terribly interested in a long debate, so I'll leave it at this: The legal principle stated by the court here - that a license plate is government speech, not protected private speech - would not change on the basis of who seeks a personalized plate. The court wouldn't rule that a license plate is government speech when a group wants something on it, but private speech when Joe Blow wants to personalize it.

[mu03eng]

I'm not terribly interested in a long debate, so I'll leave it at this: The legal principle stated by the court here - that a license plate is government speech, not protected private speech - would not change on the basis of who seeks a personalized plate. The court wouldn't rule that a license plate is government speech when a group wants something on it, but private speech when Joe Blow wants to personalize it.

I'm not a legal scholar but I'd argue that if Citizen's United were overturned (or this fictional legal fight overrode that precedent) that your last statement is incorrect.

[MU82]

Just talked to a friend who's a very important person on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ginsburg, Kennedy or one of the other 7?

I mean, there are only 9 "important persons on the U.S. Supreme Court."