Violating free speech

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I disagree. Until I saw this thread, I thought the state came up with these ideas, so I'm sure a lot of others think the same. This means that they do in fact end up reflecting on the state even if it's due to people's lack of knowledge.

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.

It doesn't meet the requirements.. The requirements state that the tag must meet the approval of state legislature. This tag did not. You could question their judgment and fairness if you want, but this is not a freedom of expression issue. The approval process allows for subjectivity and bias. You could question the fairness of that and even try to fight it, but again, this is not a freedom of expression or civil liberties issue.

A federal district judge in Orlando has sided with the Sons of Confederate Veterans in a legal fight over specialty car-license plates showing the Confederate flag.

U.S. District Judge John Antoon II ruled in favor of the group, which had challenged the constitutionality of state law establishing the license-plate program.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans, Florida Division, had argued that the state's "specialty license plate program constitutes a public forum for free speech."

The organization also said the laws "grant unfettered discretion to the Florida Legislature to limit speech in violation of the rights of SCV's members to free speech and equal protection as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

In his order, Antoon agreed. The program, he said, "implicates private speech rights" and "is unconstitutional to the extent it grants the Florida Legislature discretion to decline approval of an application for a specialty license plate based on the sponsor's viewpoint."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...late-confederate-veterans-federal-judge-rules

OMG! That's a horrible looking tag by any measure. Maybe it can be rejected on those grounds.

I want a plate that says "Abort Rednecks".

I want a plate that says "Abort Rednecks".

Historically "rednecks" were members of unions who tried to force unionization on non-union friendly states. Today it generally referrers to poor white farmers. Depending on the context, you're either anti-union or a bigot / racist.

Generally, it's clear you're intolerant of anyone who does not see things your way.

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.

Considering the number of local vehicles displaying the battle flag I doubt a majority in this area feel that way. Of course this is the" redneck riviera."
I am sure a majority of intolerant liberals feel this way though.

Historically "rednecks" were members of unions who tried to force unionization on non-union friendly states. Today it generally referrers to poor white farmers. Depending on the context, you're either anti-union or a bigot / racist.

Generally, it's clear you're intolerant of anyone who does not see things your way.

By omitting the definition that is relative today,

In recent decades, the term expanded its meaning to mean bigoted, loutish, and opposed to modern ways,[7] and has often been used to attack Southern conservatives and racists.[8] At the same time, some Southern whites have reclaimed the word, using it with pride and defiance as a self-identifier.[9]

you prove my point that conservatives want to live in the past. Society will progress with or without you, abandon your racist bigoted ways and join us in our acceptance of all people regardless of color.

I know lots of wonderful rednecks, and in fact I consider myself to be part red neck. that doesn't mean I want to fly the confederate flag but I grew up with friends who did and believe me - they did so with good thoughts - because they were and are wonderful people. they didn't give a thought to the uglier symbols or negative history associated with the flag - and why should anyone force those thought processes on them? If anyone flies a flag for racist reasons, well that is their own problem. I've never, ever known anyone to do so.

we all want the same thing really: freedom, acceptance, love, respect, safety, clean environment, family, friends. we all have different perceptions, or different ways of seeing things because of our backgrounds and life experiences. I think everyone here has a good point, but let's remember that our opinion is just that - our opinion. and your opinion is 100% right for you but not for someone else. why would we want it any other way?

By omitting the definition that is relative today,

you prove my point that conservatives want to live in the past. Society will progress with or without you, abandon your racist bigoted ways and join us in our acceptance of all people regardless of color.

You've overshot the target. You want equality and freedom for all, but in order to get there you feel the need to restricted the rights of those you think you need to reform. I want the same freedoms and equality that you do but I'm not interested in restricting anyone from voicing an opinion. In this sense I'm more respectful of people's freedom and equality than you are my friend. ;-)