Federal Judge Upholds City of Lexington's Confederate Flag Ban

Note the title, as the below post elaborates on, is not entirely accurate. The title should say "Federal Judge Upholds City of Lexington's City Ordinance Banning Flags." Because the SCV is the main group taking the city to court and claiming free speech violations, the Confederate flag is thrust to the forefront.

Excerpt from the Roanoke Times:

A legal battle to fly the Confederate flag from the street light poles of Lexington died today at the hand of a federal judge.

In a written opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Wilson dismissed a lawsuit against the city filed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The lawsuit challenged an ordinance, passed last year amid public furor, that limited the types of flags that can be flown from city-owned light poles.

Lexington City Council's decision to fly only the city, state and national flags was "eminently reasonable," Wilson wrote in a 10-page opinion released late today.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans had claimed that the city abused their free speech rights — banning the battle flag because of its controversial nature.

But in granting the city’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Wilson wrote that the city’s alleged motivations do not override the fact that the ordinance is content-neutral on its face.

By allowing only flags that represent government to be displayed on its light poles, the city essentially banned all private displays, including not just the Sons of Confederate Veterans but also two universities and several fraternities that have previously been allowed access to the poles.

For that reason, the city argued, the ordinance did not shun a particular cause and thus was not subject to First Amendment attack.

Wilson agreed, writing that to allow "a city-owned flag pole to serve as a public forum could suggest that government has placed its imprimatur on private expression."

 Judge Samuel Wilson's entire opinion can be read here. In short, Judge Wilson acknowledges that the SCV is right that the city maintained an open public forum on the light poles, and that the city closed the public forum with city ordinance 420-205. The judge acknowledged that the new city ordinance is content neutral and does not target the SCV. Therefore, this is not a freedom of speech issue. The judge elaborates on the targeting issue in one of the footnotes:

The Rule 12(b)(6) standard, as interpreted by Twombly and Iqbal, require that the factual allegations in the complaint nudge the claims across the line from conceivable to plausible. The facts in SCV’s complaint show that the City has allowed several groups (including SCV) to fly private flags from city-owned flag poles. That SCV was the last group in a line of several to get the City’s permission to fly its flags, that a councilman who voted against SCV’s application moved City Council to establish a flag policy, or that private citizens spoke out against City approbation of the Confederate flag, does not render plausible the theory that the City sought to silence SCV’s message by enacting § 420-205.

  That last sentence is important because as Kevin Levin pointed out on his blog Civil War Memory, the SCV will still be able to fly the CBF and spread the "Southern Heritage" message. They just can't do it on city poles.

"True or Not?" - Connie Chastain

UPDATE: Andy Hall at Dead Confederates has written a wonderful post on Forrest's Klan involvement. 

Connie Chastain over at SHPG, or as Brooks Simpson calls it, "The gift that keeps on giving," has posed a new question. Take a look.

This new uproar about Silas Chandler can only be in response to Kevin Levin's new co-authored article in the Civil War Times, which is available now. This new article by the way, has already seen some scrutiny by certain SHPG advocates to which Kevin has issued a challenge.  But back to Connie's question.

Primary Source evidence? I don't know of any that says Nathan Bedford Forrest organized and founded the Ku Klux Klan. So that means....none?  How about Nathan Beford Forrest's overall involvement with the klan? Well, we can use Google and our good friend wikipedia to run a small search that might have some results.

Wikipedia - Ku Klux Klan

Scroll down to the notes section and look at  "38." 

An oral account from an eye witness does count as a primary source.  So.....one?

This is not an attempt at history from Connie Chastain, nor has she ever made such attempt. She simply does not care about history. It does not fit her agenda. This is just another step in pushing "Confederate Heritage." Kevin Levin and Myra Chandler Simpson have put in the man hours to present a piece of scholarship. What we should do is peer review it. What this is above is just another attempt to be argumentative and to bash others. Connie's attempt at critique this time, is an irrelevant gesture to the understanding Silas Chandler. What she is advocating is that if we accept one, we must accept the other. I'm not buying it. If there is one primary source account that says Forrest was in the Klan, I'm not buying that either. There is nothing there to cross reference and so I say not determinable. If someone would like to drop a comment below referencing more material on that matter, I would be more than grateful. However, in regards to Silas; it has been shown on numerous occasions that the information saying he is a Confederate soldier is misinterpreted by many. Most information about him exists on the internet in the "Black Confederate" pages of SCV websites.

So to answer your question Connie; not. Forrest is in the lead 1-0 with my preliminary search. My question is, have you actually read the article yet?

Soon to Come: Statue Unveiling

I am traveling up the road just a bit to Jefferson, Georgia to witness the unveiling of a Confederate Statue. Or rather a statue that has been repaired and is being unveiled again. I am not entirely sure of the particulars, but  I will figure them out and be able to report on them later in the day. Looking forward to this one.