[getty src="51094186?et=1A9CbZA6Rr9qeLlDg3SB4Q&viewMoreLink=off&sig=z4UMRMj4a__76Pjy6nSlWh9yjfl3woOMDK4-DHgs5zk=&caption=true" width="594" height="315"]
The only thing I can think of here is that people are going to keep trying to keep bringing back the confederate flag and it takes a ruling like this to force them to stop.
But there is something to say about history where you want to keep it alive somehow. In that case, even if it's an offensive image, there's no reason why it can't be displayed somewhere but let's look at history again, where the state government (part of the union, who won the civil war) can reject the image from being on any of their documents.
And so if the confederate flag is mildly offensive to them to the point where it would be even more to be put on a state owned document, than they can reject it entirely.
Can you imagine however, Greg Abbot reversing the rule?