Skip to main content

Government Control on Speech

The government speech doctrine in Bohanon’s discussion in “Tweeting the Police” made me question possible abuse of power by the government. Bohanon says it is “a fairly recent legal development that gives government wide leeway to convey its own messages… includ[ing] accepting speech from some private entities while excluding others with conflicting views” (351-352). Basically, the doctrine is saying that when there is speech put out by the government, there Is no violation of the Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment. Therefore, the government can say whatever they want. At least that is my understanding. I think this doctrine allows the government too much control over our speech and freedom of expression rights, and it should be revised to require more reasoning, evidence, and context for speech regulations and limitations.

Take the Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans court case. This case was due to a rejected request of a specialty license plate in Texas. The Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans wanted to make a customized license plate with the confederate flag on it, but was denied by the government to make such a plate. Claiming violation of freedom of expression by the Texas Division, the courts ruled in favor of the government saying there was no violation because technically license plates are government speech, somewhat like government ID’s, and they have the right under the government speech doctrine to reject the license plate (576 U. S., 2015).


It’s not that I think the confederate flag should be promoted, but I do think that this case is an example of how the government can abuse their power using the doctrine. By claiming license plates as government speech, they were saying that when someone sees a license plate, custom or not, they associate it with the government. But is that really true? I can say that I have never thought of a custom license plate in association with the government, but with the person driving the car. If you have a coded license plate that is coded to resemble something funny, inappropriate, or your views, I make judgements on the person and only the person. This may just be me, but I think this type of ruling by the government should not be considered protected under law. The doctrine should be revised to limit government control on rulings such as this one.

Sources:



Alysha L. Bohanon, Tweeting the Police: Balancing Free and Decency on Government-                        Sponsored Media Pages, 101 L. Rev. 341, 382 (2016).
"576 U. S. ____ (2015). Walker, Chairman, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, et al. v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, INC., ET AL." (n.d.): n. pag. Supreme Court of the United States. 23 Mar. 2015. Web.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more