"We think Texas was right to reject the Confederate plates, but that North Carolina should have issued the abortion rights plates. How can this be? Are we merely siding with liberals in both cases? No."
Methinks the two professors who wrote those lines in a New York Times op-ed appearing today doth protest too much. Their column opines on a case before the Supreme Court deciding the circumstances under which states can refuse to issue vanity license plates.
Per the profs, "there is no strong government interest in denying pro-choice messages." In contrast, the authors assert that the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans plate represents a "racist message" running afoul of the Equal Protection Clause, and "Texas has a strong interest in avoiding such a violation."
It is true that the plate in question displays a Confederate Battle Flag, but also makes clear that it represents the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Are not the views of that organization thus relevant? Reviewing a number of its newsletters, I found no racist messages. To the contrary, I found this statement by one of its leaders in a column entitled "We Believe" [emphasis added]:
We believe the 50-star flag of the United States of America is the symbol of the Country of which we are citizens and which we love and respect.
We shall not, under any circumstance, tolerate racism of any type by word or deed.
Since the professors make the invidious accusation of racism, is not the burden on them to prove it? And isn't the standard of proof particularly high when the charge is relied on to prohibit the exercise of what otherwise would be considered an exercise of First Amendment rights of free speech?
