So this Washington Post story relates that the owner of a truck sought and obtained a personalized license plate from Virginia. The plate had the Confederate flag on it; Virginia issues such plates for an additional fee to any member of the “Sons of Confederate Veterans” group. (In the same way, I have a “Knights of Columbus” emblem on my license plates).
May a state impose a restriction that’s not viewpoint neutral?
As the article explains, Virginia bans plates like A55HO1E and LIKE 69S. These seem to me defensible bans, in that they are viewpoint-neutral. But may Virginia ban a plate that supports white supremacy just because Virginia doesn’t agree with the political ideas of white supremacists?
I’m not sure that’s consistent with the First Amendment.
I’d guess that having one guy in the state with a cryptic plate would have been less trouble than making an issue out of it and generating publicity for his cause.
No particular opinion, but it calls to mind the long, sad saga of the guy who wanted a “GOTMILF” vanity tag, and the collection of complaint letters from busybodies upset over various other tags. Apparently, some people manage to get themselves ridiculously offended over these little rolling word puzzles.
But is it a First Amendment issue? You do not own your license plate, it is government property. It gets sticky when they allow some messages and not others. Would the state allow a black nationalist message, or a anti-Catholic message?
I would say it depends on their stated guidelines and their consistency in following them.
Saying they’re “banning” the plate seems like a weird way of putting it. The number on a plate is primarily so the State of Virginia can use it to keep track of the car. I’m not sure the state saying they don’t want to accept a racist slogan to use in their internal systems to keep track of the car registration is the same as “banning” those racist slogans.
If the guy just wanted to write “Hitler Rules!!” on the side of his car, I’d say it was protected by the first amendment. But I don’t think he can force the state to use similar phrases as his cars registration.
Free speech protects bigoted A55HO1E’s too. Plus, in this case, gives them free publicity.
I suppose they could make a claim that this might lead to confrontations, fights, etc., but that’s true of about any opinionated speech.
ETA: AS I was typing, Simplico and Strassia posted and their posts have pushed me back into the “must think more about this campaign”. It’s a good point that a plate isn’t yours, so you speech is limited.
hmmmm…
It’s hard to tease out the strict question “can a state impose a restriction that’s not viewpoint neutral” when the license plate in question is so obscure. There’s going to be a lot of white noise in this thread about how nobody would know that was a racial message anyway.
Pretend the license plate said “HEIL H”. Does the state have the right to restrict that?
I think no. I know there’s one guy who’s been a PITA about a license plate saying “NO PLATES” but judges have defended his rights to that on first amendment grounds.
I don’t see how this, which is not inciting violence but only hateful, should not get first-amendment protection.
I don’t have a problem with the “LIKE 69S” one either.
Obviously, if the state allows personalized license plates, it must allow some messages and not others. I’d be stunned to hear that Virginia disapproved an I LV USA plate, for example.
Yeah, but in this case, the guy helpfully sought more attention when he emblazoned his truck’s tailgate with an image of the 9/11 towers collapsing and the phrase, “All I needed to know about Islam, I learned from 9/11.”
What they should do, of course, is assign this guy the A55HO1E plate. He’s kind of begging for it. If that’s not a satisfactory solution, really, just give people whatever plates they want. It’s ridiculous that people want to use their plates to send messages, but it’s only a little more ridiculous than using your bumper sticker.
It’s true that virtually no one would understand the plates, but I don’t think that should be a criterion in making a decision here. And I’m not convinced by the idea that it’s the government’s plate, not yours, so they can do what they want with it. If I see an OU812 license plate, I don’t think, “Oh my, the government is endorsing Van Halen!” I think “the guy who owns that car must be a Van Halen nut. I’d better roll up my windows.”
Many of the complaint letters I’ve seen take the form of a horror narrative in which (for example) freckle-faced little Jimmy or Suzy’s innocent game of “count the red cars” was rudely interrupted by the looming presence of a cryptic tag the extent of whose vulgarity is only revealed when the outraged parent was *compelled *to explain what (for example) DRTYSNCHZ meant. Which of course left little Billy or Becky tear-stained and inconsolable afterward, cloistered in their dark, silent playroom amid scattered toys that would never be fun to play with again.
Looking, can’t find one. I remember a newspaper article (likely Washington Post before 1995, the year I moved to Chicago) about it, and specifically that a judge ruled on his behalf (if it was in fact Robert Barbour, it may have been another guy with “NO PLATES” in a different state), citing the first amendment.
It’s tough to google because *another *Robert Barbour was in the middle of a first-amendment debate in Virginia several years ago about having specialty Confederacy plates.
When the KKK wanted to join a ‘clean up the highway’ program in some state several years ago, the state got around it by threatening to rename the highway “Martin Luther King Highway” for whatever stretch they kept clean. I wonder if there’s some clever way out of this mess, too, without violating freedom of expression.
Seems like a violation to me, given what else they would allow-- the LUV USA idea being a perfect example. Plus, the “88” in question can have other connotation, too, even if it probably doesn’t in this particular case.
I’m for considerable latitude in approving personalized plates. But in the end it’s the state’s logo on the plate along with whatever sentiment you’re expressing, issuing plates is a state function and if they decide your message is offensive you can (within some limits) get an equivalent bumper sticker to show what a moron you are.
I’d like to see states end the practice of issuing any politicized plates (i.e. officially-approved anti-abortion rights or pro-abortion rights plates (assuming the latter is available anywhere). You want to be a rolling billboard, buy bumper stickers or scrawl on your own slogans.
Question: if a state gets bamboozled into issuing an offensive personalized plate and a highway road rage incident erupts with someone getting hurt or killed, could the state be liable?
What happens if somebody uses a car to drag a black guy (or a homosexual, etc.) to his death and the license plate becomes a white-supremacist catchphrase?
How are they viewpoint neutral? The people who want those plates want to express opinions, about their own beliefs or likings. “LIKE 69S” is particular is expressing an opinion about sexual preferences, an area of great personal significance and personal values.
As for whether the combination on that plate is obscure, I have to say that I understood it as soon as I saw it (once I got the visual that the plate has the SCV logo on it.)
What caused me greater befuddlement was Bricker’s title for this thread. My initial thoughts were “Who’s 14CV88? and why didn’t Bricker put this in ATMB?”
