"To be sure, the First Amendment protects horse owners' rights to free speech, and we do not foreclose Mr. Redmond indiscriminately from asserting that right, but the right to free speech is not absolute in all contexts," Batchelder wrote.
What say ye?
As others have said, Redmond can call his horse anything he wants. But if he wants to race it at a public track, "names that may be offensive to religious, political or ethnic groups" won't be approved.
It's common sense, and common law under our 'fighting words' type codes.
Now, - its your turn, -- what say you?
I agree with the Club. It’s their club and their right to have the rules for their members. He can call his horse anything he wants, but to race it must have a “club approved” name. (as an aside, many horses have 2 names anyway, one for the papers and one for the owners’ privately. This is not government suppression of “Free Speech” by any s-t-r-e-t-c-h. Coming around the far side, or not....
Since you *can* obtain “special permission” to use names of famous or notorious people do you think if the owner was a black woman they’d not grant such permission? Remember, they’re a literal gatekeeper for the state here and as such should not be allowed the broad rights afforded to truly private organizations.