The California state assembly has passed a new law that will be prohibit the selling or displaying items with an image of the Confederate flag. We have previously discussed the disciplining of students and others over the display of this flag as protected speech. In the same way, this bill raises serious constitutional questions and could trigger a court fight.
Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton secured a 72-1 vote in favor of the new law. It would not prohibit the display in educational or museum settings. However, it would prevent people from displaying the flag on state property which would presumably include parks. Hall said that he took the action after his mother saw replica Confederate money being sold at the state Capitol gift shop.
The amended bill is quite vague on key terms. It states:
SECTION 1. Section 53.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
53.5. (a) The State of California may not sell or display the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, also referred to as the Stars and Bars, or any similar image, or tangible personal property inscribed with such an image unless the image appears in a book that serves an educational or historical purpose.
(b) For purposes of this section, “sell” means to transfer title or possession, exchange, or barter, conditional or otherwise, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, for consideration. “Transfer possession” includes only transactions that would be found by the State Board of Equalization, for purposes of the Sales and Use Tax Law, to be in lieu of a transfer of title, exchange, or barter.
This removes problematic language in the original version but leaves a lot of questions. Here is the original language:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 53.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
53.5. (a) A person The State of California may not sell a Confederate flag or display the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, also referred to as the Stars and Bars, or any similar image, or tangible personal property inscribed with the such an image of a Confederate flag on property owned or operated by the state unless the image appears in a book that serves an educational or historical purpose.
(b) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
(1)“Person” means any individual, partnership, firm, joint stock company, corporation, limited liability company, association, trust, estate, or other legal entity.
(2)“Sell” section, “sell” means to transfer title or possession, exchange, or barter, conditional or otherwise, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, for consideration. “Transfer possession” includes only transactions that would be found by the State Board of Equalization, for purposes of the Sales and Use Tax Law, to be in lieu of a transfer of title, exchange, or barter.
Hall insisted that the flag is a symbol of racism that should not be allowed to be displayed. The Southern flag is clearly insulting to many people due to its historical associations. However, it is also a simple of Southern heritage and sacrifice. Robert E. Lee himself identified with the flag while rejoicing in the end of slavery. He stated:
In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.
So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.
Respected scholars like Civil War historian Shelby Foote have noted that the flag traditionally represented the South’s resistance to Northern political dominance. As discussing in PBS interview, he was sensitive to how many of his friends viewed it as a symbol of racism but he did not share that view. Others view it as a symbol of state’s rights or Southern culture or opposition to speech codes or politically correct sentiments. The point is that, if some flags are allowed, there are a variety of symbols that are viewed as offensive by different groups.
So the question is what happens when people want to display this symbol while others are displaying other flags viewed negatively by other groups from Free Tibet to the PLO to Israel to China. It sounds a lot like content-based censorship.
The bill was amended to exclude non-government employees and businesses from the ban to address some of these concerns. It would also not ban the display for educational or historical reasons in textbooks. To the extent that it only affects government speech, the state is on stronger ground to be sure, but I am still unclear on the wide array of displays organized by the government with citizens or groups. Even with the wise exclusions, there would appear a myriad of circumstances where state employees would be presented with a conflict in barring the display not just on a flag but in other forms containing this symbol. Those specific conflicts could present an interesting challenge to the new law.
Source: CBS
Try playing with someone who is as good at tic tac toe as you and see who wins. Anecdotal evidence is always fun.
With the utmost respect, I would take ‘evenly matched’ under advisement.
As for me I won’t hesitate to tell on the class bullies.
Paul S
You might recall:
The King and Wallis Simpson
Margaret and Townsend
Margaret fiercely criticized
That Was The Week That Was
Charles and Camilla (pre-Diana and pre-Camilla’s divorce)
Squidgy Tape – Diana and lover
Camilllagate Tape Charles and Camilla
Harry in Nazi costume
Harry naked in Vegas
Okay, I give, you have some of it. The UK can disapprove of the royal children.
Dredd – between evenly matched players, tic tac toe is always a draw.
There is a flag with a large circle of stars in the middle, like a zero.
With it and the big X rebel flag, we could play tic tac toe.
We could kick they butt.
^ PrincipAl (typing too fast)
Annie, I was just kidding. I know how to run to the principle.
I just won’t.
And, again, Paul lies about me.
“you are fond of the Cornerstone Speech”
Nope. Not even close. I despise it. I think the people it spoke for were horrific monsters. I think those who still agree with it are monsters.
“you cite it over and over again”
And this means I’m “fond” of it?
” Your defense of Northerners failed to include those who held slaves. ”
My defense of whom? I defended the US for eventually getting it right on slavery, something the CSA cannot claim. I defend the abolitionists and those who were against slavery. I do NOT defend racists anywhere. Where I live, what we fondly refer to as “Upper Appalachia,” I see almost as many confederate flags since Obama got elected as I saw in Arkansas growing up.
Tell me those guys are just “celebrating their southern heritage.”
“I am going to go through the Fort Sumter argument again”
Why? I just proved it was US land.
“because you clearly do not seem to get it”
Speak for yourself.
“When you are a country, you have recognized territorial rights to the waters around you”
South Carolina wasn’t a country. They were a bunch of traitors who took over a state and attacked the US.
“South Carolina saw itself as an independent nation and therefore had at least a 3-mile limit.”
If I live on the coast and “see” my house is an independent nation, would I get three miles of ocean?
The fact that South Carolina saw itself as something that it was not, from the point of view of the north, makes not one whit of difference. But EVEN IF IT DID, then you’re saying that they had every right to revoke a land grant that South Carolina had given to the US? Just, poof, and all your legal obligations disappear?
And, since we’ve used Guantanamo as an example before, and you abandoned that line of thought, then your reasoning means that if Cuba decides the US lease for that base no longer exists, then they would be perfectly within their rights to attack it.
“Any deal struck to buy the land was with the state of South Carolina, not the nation of South Carolina.”
There was no “nation of South Carolina.” And even if you consider the seceded state of SC a nation that existed for a while before they joined the CSA, their legal rights under international law are in a gray area, to say the least.
“This is somewhat analogous to the Falkland Islands where both Britain and Argentina lay claim”
Somewhat is a big word.
“Just because I do not get back to an argument does not mean I have given up on it.”
When you come back to a thread and make other arguments without addressing the ones still open, then I assume you’re moving on. Please don’t tell me you were going to come back to Sumter if I hadn’t nudged you on it.
“Supak – you can search for an email address like the rest of us have. I would help you but the exercise will do you good.”
You don’t really pick up on subtle humor very well, do you?
I can certainly pick up on an insult when I see one.
Supak – I think you are getting a little testy. Serenity, as Annie would say. Blogs are not a good forum for subtle humor, btw. Yeppers, I am standing behind what I said about SC and Fort Sumter. Also, analogous is a big word, somewhat is not. That is subtle humor.
Scott, look under the tab above under “Corrections” for Professor Turley’s email address.
Supak – if you cannot spell principal correctly (you have done it twice now) how are we going to take you seriously. 😉
Frank: “Supak you need to do some basic reading before you can be taken seriously”
I’m really sick of these insults from neo confederates. I got a full academic scholarship to the University of Arkansas where I got a BA in Philosophy with a lot of extra time in history and English. I graduated with honors. I know American history quite well, thank you. Enough to know that Shelby Foote has been corrected many times by scholars much better than I.
But, OK, I read your comment. Seriously. Apparently that’s more than you can say.
To wit, Grant:
“If I thought this war was to abolish slavery”
I challenge you to find where I said the war was to abolish slavery.
The war was ABOUT slavery. The fact that he addressed the abolition of slavery goes to my point, not yours.
But not once have I said the Civil War was waged to abolish slavery. It wasn’t. It was waged to keep the union together. Lincoln famously said he’d let the south keep their slaves if it would end the war.
One side wanted to be a different country because they could no longer “win” democratically in the old one. The south was convinced Lincoln would end slavery. That’s why his election was the last straw and sparked secession.
“quit spewing your politically correct history you were taught in public school”
Make me.
“Facts are facts, slavery flew under the flag of the US for over 70 years, should we ban that flag?”
I have already addressed this, but maybe you ignored it.
The US flag represents a country that did the right thing on slavery. Slave states were becoming a minority in congress. Expansion was going to be slave free. Slavery would not have been able to survive democratically in the US. SO, they quit, and then attacked US Soil at Ft Sumter.
So I suggest you quit spewing what some redneck at a gun show told you about the civil war, eh?
“George Washington was a slave owner, should we ban him from US currency?”
Not only have I said I don’t support banning the confederate battle flag of northern VA, but I also have never suggested we take Washington off the many things he’s on. The question here is whether a state can make a statement about a symbol that is, to a great many people, offensive. That you take offense at their taking offense doesn’t make it any less offensive to them.
That you would continue to wave that flag in the face of someone to whom it is offensive, while you also call them stupid for being offended by it, is so offensive that I cannot properly express myself and still keep my commenting privileges.
If the state of California votes to not allow sales of that disgusting relic of slavery, that’s fine with me. As long as I can go to some private store and buy the confederate flag I want to burn.
Do you burn the US flag?
“If the real truth was taught about Abraham Lincoln his monuments would be the ones torn down.”
The real truth about Lincoln is told. That’s why we have those monuments.
Professor?
Frank: “I dont even consider Supak intelligent enough to understand the reality of what went on during that war. ”
That’s civil?
freetruthnow
“Blacks in the south, even as property, were treated better than they were in the north on the whole. This is true today as well.”
This is so far from the truth, and so disgustingly perverse that I’m surprised the comment was allowed to stand. It’s despicable, and certainly not civil to lie like that, and I would like to know precisely how I run to the principle to tell on you for saying it.
Supak – you can search for an email address like the rest of us have. I would help you but the exercise will do you good.
freetruthnow has the most ironic name here.
“If you say that the reason for the war is slavery, then you imply that the reason the Northern States invaded was to end slavery.”
That does not follow, and I implied no such thing.
“You can’t have it both ways.”
Did the south invade the north? Yes. Did the south start the war? Yes. The north fought back. As the war progressed, most of those in the north who would defend slavery in order to keep the union together eventually changed their minds and supported emancipation and the 13th.
This fact does NOT mean that the war wasn’t about slavery. It was.
“Do you believe that the slave owner George Washington and his band of slave owning secessionists (including the Northern States at the time) were fighting for slavery because they wanted independence from Britain while wanting to keep their slaves? Try to be a little more consistent.”
Do you believe that John Jay, who hated slavery, wanted freedom from Britain in order to have slaves? Try to be more consistent.
“Funny how you lump all southerners into the same group even as you apologize for northerners by saying they weren’t all bad. ”
I did not lump all southerners together. I know for a fact that there were abolitionists in the south.
“Only about 6% of the people in the South owned slaves”
The question isn’t how many owned slaves, it’s how many wanted to keep slavery. Even poor white folks thought they were superior to blacks. And they fought for the right to a country that reflected that.
“The bulk of Southerners were defending their homes against invaders.”
They were defending their “way of life.” You know what that means.
“Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, Grant et al were barbarians that set civilization back a 1,000 years by reinstituting total war by raping, murdering, burning homes and pillaging civilians. Stumbling indeed, these invaders were the terrorists and murderers. ”
Ever hear of Nathan Bedford Forest? Massacre on the Nueces? Lawrence Massacre? Bee Creek Massacre? Champ Ferguson?
War is hell.
http://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=249
That’s why I oppose it in almost all circumstances. I don’t see how the Civil War could have possibly been avoided, given the fact that the election of Lincoln was enough to make several southern states seceed. They couldn’t win democratically, so they quit.
And some people think that’s heroic? Or Patriotic? Or something…
And “reinstituting total war”? When did total war go away?
“Most slaves were not treated nearly this bad as they had to work and had value.”
Confederate apologist myth. But let’s for a second assume that 51% of all slaves “were not treated this bad.” You don’t think being owned, kept ignorant, bred, having their children kidnapped, or having the threat of violence held over your head is “this bad”?
Please.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/27b.asp
“A slave was not permitted to keep a gun. If caught carrying a gun, the slave received 39 lashes and forfeited the gun.”
I wonder what you would say about that if it were you being denied your right to own a gun?
” To Northerners blacks had no value and they were shunned, starved, put out in the cold and killed without repercussions. ”
SOME northerner treated blacks just as badly as SOME southerners did. And some states did not allow bad treatment of free people. John Jay outlawed slavery in New York, and while bad acts were committed against blacks in New York after that, those were crimes. Depending on the slave codes of various states, such treatment would not be a crime in those states.
Frank wrote:
“I dont even consider Supak intelligent enough to understand the reality of what went on during that war.”
Sounds pretty personal to me.
Who is this “Stupak” to whom you refer, Professor?
“Please focus on the arguments and avoid the personal characterizations or attacks”
Like Shiite Liberal?
I’d like to know what characterizations and attacks I made that were worse than the ones being leveled against me, so I can avoid doint them again. I honestly don’t remember which comment you took away, and why.
I dont even consider Supak intelligent enough to understand the reality of what went on during that war. What did Gen Grant himself say, “If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side”
Supak you need to do some basic reading before you can be taken seriously, quit spewing your politically correct history you were taught in public school. Facts are facts, slavery flew under the flag of the US for over 70 years, should we ban that flag? George Washington was a slave owner, should we ban him from US currency?
If the real truth was taught about Abraham Lincoln his monuments would be the ones torn down.
Supak – you are fond of the Cornerstone Speech, you cite it over and over again. Your defense of Northerners failed to include those who held slaves.
I am going to go through the Fort Sumter argument again, because you clearly do not seem to get it. When you are a country, you have recognized territorial rights to the waters around you, the 3-mile, or 20-mile or 200-mile limit, depending on the country. South Carolina saw itself as an independent nation and therefore had at least a 3-mile limit. Fort Sumter was clearly within those limits. Any deal struck to buy the land was with the state of South Carolina, not the nation of South Carolina. This is somewhat analogous to the Falkland Islands where both Britain and Argentina lay claim. A small but bitter war was fought over those islands, with Argentina losing. In the case of Fort Sumter it was a couple of days of bombardment, with no one killed.
Just because I do not get back to an argument does not mean I have given up on it. Just that I did not get back to it. I am following 7 threads right now, so this is not my only concern. 🙂
John, with another straw man.
“Secession good, secession bad; it’s so hard to tell.”
Defending slavery is bad. Seceding from the Soviet Union isn’t.
Seems pretty simple to me. Sorry you seem to be having trouble with it.
freetruthnow
“Supac”
It’s so funny how people like you so often misspell my name. Is this an intentional, uncivil, childish dig at me, or just a mistake? Who knows. But it sure happens a lot.
“so you admit that Lincoln’s purpose for invading the Southern States was not to “end slavery”?”
I asked you who said it was. You didn’t answer that question.
Those of us familiar with history know that Lincoln wanted to keep the Union together. He said he’d let the south keep their slaves if that would keep the union together.
The south, however, knew better. They could see the writing on the wall. If they stayed in the Union, they were going to be outvoted, and there would have been a democratic end to their campaign of terror.
So, they decided to fight for slavery instead.
“Only children believe the altruistic propaganda for why wars are fought (e.g. to end slavery, save the union);”
You calling me a child? Only childish adults deny the fact that slavery was the reason for the civil war.
“all wars are for economic purposes”
In this case, for the economics of stolen labor and owning people.
“You’re posts had me confused on your position there”
Your posts did not have me confused on your position.
“he plainly said that he would invade if the the citizens of Southern States did not pay the 40% tax”
And then you contradict this with his quote…
“but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
So, his job as POTUS is to enforce the law. He says he’s going to enforce the law, but NO MORE THAN THAT, and you say that’s him promising to invade. Even though he said the opposite.
OK, then…
” Fort Sumter was effectively a tax collection post”
If you say so. But collecting taxes is the purview of the executive branch of the Federal Government.
The rest of your garbled reading of history in order to apologize for a bunch of terrorists and murders is amusing.
“Accusing Southern politicians of being racists (they were) while promoting the idea that Northern politicians were involved in some righteous calling is pure hypocrisy. Who is the apologist for racism”
You are. See, I never said the north was on some righteous calling. Some wanted to end slavery, some didn’t care. The north stumbled into doing the right thing. Lincoln eventually saw the light and did the right thing. The south most certainly did not, and would not have.
So, I’m certainly not saying the things you say I’m saying.
What I’m saying is that the idea that the Civil War WAS NOT about slavery is wrong. It was. Were there other factors involved? Certainly. None as important as the fact that the white supremacists saw their way of life threatened, and they wanted to fight to keep it that way.
The fact that apologists like you want to obfuscate that basic fact tells me a whole lot about you.
So, please, keep talking.
Stupak, I have deleted one of your comments for violating the civility rule. Please focus on the arguments and avoid the personal characterizations or attacks if you want to keep commenting.
Scott Supak
If you say that the reason for the war is slavery, then you imply that the reason the Northern States invaded was to end slavery. You can’t have it both ways. Do you believe that the slave owner George Washington and his band of slave owning secessionists (including the Northern States at the time) were fighting for slavery because they wanted independence from Britain while wanting to keep their slaves? Try to be a little more consistent. By the way the two largest slave ports importing and auctioning slaves were New York and Washington, DC.
Funny how you lump all southerners into the same group even as you apologize for northerners by saying they weren’t all bad. Only about 6% of the people in the South owned slaves (some owners were even black and some were Native-Americans) and that 6% were primarily the most wealthy persons who controlled the political process. The bulk of Southerners were defending their homes against invaders.
Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, Grant et al were barbarians that set civilization back a 1,000 years by reinstituting total war by raping, murdering, burning homes and pillaging civilians. Stumbling indeed, these invaders were the terrorists and murderers. Most slaves were not treated nearly this bad as they had to work and had value. To Northerners blacks had no value and they were shunned, starved, put out in the cold and killed without repercussions. Obfuscating these facts is ignorant and/or hypocritical. Blacks in the south, even as property, were treated better than they were in the north on the whole. This is true today as well.