# 14CV88 banned as racially offensive **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422 "2010-04-26T17:35:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/21 "2010-04-26T19:10:36Z")
They should allow this and all types of stupid vanity plates. Makes it easier to identify which car tires to slash ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/22 "2010-04-26T19:25:38Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > 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.) Wait - you understood, as soon as you saw the license plate, that “88” was a code for “Heil Hitler,” and that “14” represented the number of words in some cretin’s motto? What kind of circles do you hang out in? ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/23 "2010-04-26T19:32:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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.” For context: [http://www.cair.com/images/Heil-Hitler-License-Plate.jpg](http://www.cair.com/images/Heil-Hitler-License-Plate.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/24 "2010-04-26T19:47:55Z")
> [@theR](#): > > For context: > [http://www.cair.com/images/Heil-Hitler-License-Plate.jpg](http://www.cair.com/images/Heil-Hitler-License-Plate.jpg) Is this guy handicapped? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/25 "2010-04-26T19:50:41Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > Is this guy handicapped? Mentally, probably. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/26 "2010-04-26T19:51:05Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Wait - you understood, as soon as you saw the license plate, that “88” was a code for “Heil Hitler,” and that “14” represented the number of words in some cretin’s motto? I’ve heard the ‘88’ thing, and I’m pretty far from what I picture is the usual crowd white supremacists hang out with (for starters, I suspect their crowd includes more white people). I wouldn’t call it common knowledge, but its made its way into police procedurals and the like, so its not really that obscure. Wouldn’t have guessed the ‘14’ thing though. > [@orcenio](#): > > Is this guy handicapped? Is crippling racism a handicap? But more seriously, the OP’s article says the DMV won’t release the identity of the guy, so we don’t know if he’s parked illegally in that photo. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/27 "2010-04-26T20:01:37Z")
Seems simple to me. Your license plate is not yours to flex your first amendment rights with. As long as the state is clear and even-handed in what plates they allow and disallow they are fine. It is their rules that apply here. They are not stopping this guy from writing a blog titled 14CV88 if he wanted to. Now, if they let some other racially charged plate but not this one that would be different. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/28 "2010-04-26T20:05:33Z")
> [@bup](#): > > 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. I think it depends on the written policies of the DMV in question. No plates is just an annoyance to the police, it probably doesn’t fall under any specific ban in the procedures. > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. You could also probably get away with MLK RLZ or any of a dozen other positive messages. It all boils down to the policies of the DMV and if they are consistent. You have no absolute right to a vanity plate which is not your property. The guy could put the same message on a bumper sticker(and make it bigger than the license plate to boot). He can but almost any message he wants on his car (libel and a few other exceptions notwithstanding), but this is him trying to insert racist messages in an official state data base. Messages that show support for nations and/or states are not in the same category. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/29 "2010-04-26T20:14:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Seems simple to me. Your license plate is not yours to flex your first amendment rights with. Not entirely [true](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard). > [@](#): > > As long as the state is clear and even-handed in what plates they allow and disallow they are fine. It is their rules that apply here. > > They are not stopping this guy from writing a blog titled 14CV88 if he wanted to. > > Now, if they let some other racially charged plate but not this one that would be different. But there’s the rub. There is not an equivalent plate going in the other direction on the issues involved that would be banned; it’s clearly a one-way thing where advocating white supremacy is no good, but advocating racial harmony is fine. In other words, the state is certainly not even-handed in the way they approach this. That’s how most First Amendment problems work, after all, since both sides of most viewpoints are not equally socially offensive. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/30 "2010-04-26T20:29:26Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Not entirely [true](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooley_v._Maynard). > > But there’s the rub. There is not an equivalent plate going in the other direction on the issues involved that would be banned; it’s clearly a one-way thing where advocating white supremacy is no good, but advocating racial harmony is fine. In other words, the state is certainly not even-handed in the way they approach this. That’s how most First Amendment problems work, after all, since both sides of most viewpoints are not equally socially offensive. Why is racial harmony the equivalent of white supremacy? Wouldn’t the equivalent be some other race’s supremacy? Banning both KKK and La Raza\* slogans would be equivalent. Just like banning anti-Islamic slogans means you also have to ban anti-Christian/Hindu/Shinto/etc., but banning anti-religious messages does not mean you have to ban all religious messages. \*Assuming they are explicitly Hispanic/Mexican supremacy and not merely promoting pride and equality ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/31 "2010-04-26T20:36:58Z")
I suppose I have no really well-examined rationale why it should be OK for the state to ban something like this. But it is. On one side of the ledger, the state is legitimately in the business of policing general welfare and morality. Moreover, it’s not just that the guy is doing something obnoxious – what he’s doing is much worse than that. To wit, he’s co-opting the instrumentalities of the state for nefarious purpose. And not just nefarious – broadcasting this message is, among other things, an instance of racial harassment, at least to those who get it. Moreover, since he does use state apparatus, he’s forcing the state to give its imprimatur to the conduct, and compelling the state to participate in his harassment. I don’t think the state is forced to acquiesce to that. The state must not prohibit messages based on content, but that’s not the same as requiring the state to itself \*endorse \*all messages regardless of content. Otherwise, we would have to read the First Amendment as compelling the state to speak, and I think the Amendment’s force is in the negative, prohibitive direction. (Further authority, if it need be found, can be dug out of the Reconstruction Amendments – which do have positive force. But I don’t think this case turns on them; my analysis is based on the contour of the 1st A., itself.) –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/32 "2010-04-26T20:37:30Z")
The NC DMV, back in the mid-90s, would not let a foaf get the license plate: HAUNTED. They said it would be intimidating to other drivers, or somesuch. The license plate he already had and was wanting to change over from? MASSACRE They would not let my uncle get the plate CLT LKR, even though he insisted it meant “Charlotte Liker” (funny guy, that uncle.) Arizona makes a big deal about bragging that you own your license plate here. I wonder what, if any, difference that would make. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/33 "2010-04-26T20:41:46Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > They would not let my uncle get the plate CLT LKR, even though he insisted it meant “Charlotte Liker” (funny guy, that uncle.) My mother’s initials are “BB”. She was refused that vanity plate (in Illinois) on the grounds that BBs are ammunition. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/34 "2010-04-26T20:53:41Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Why is racial harmony the equivalent of white supremacy? Wouldn’t the equivalent be some other race’s supremacy? Banning both KKK and La Raza\* slogans would be equivalent. Just like banning anti-Islamic slogans means you also have to ban anti-Christian/Hindu/Shinto/etc., but banning anti-religious messages does not mean you have to ban all religious messages. Because that’s what the requirement for viewpoint neutrality means. You don’t compare, for the purposes of constitutionality, one bit of speech to another bit of speech you consider equally offensive or analogous. You compare it to similar speech coming from the other side of the same argument, and you make sure that the government’s actions are completely neutral as to which side of the issue a speaker is coming from. If the government isn’t regulating or can’t regulate anti-Christian/Islamic/Jewish speech, neither can it regulate pro-X/Y/Z speech; if it bans anti-war protests it can’t allow pro-war protests, and so on. The important point is that it not make any allowances for one side of the issue that it doesn’t make for another. And if the government isn’t regulating or can’t regulate anti-white supremacist speech (which I termed speech promoting racial harmony), then it can’t regulate pro-white supremacist speech, either, because that would be discrimination based on the speaker’s viewpoint, which is considered the worst kind of discrimination and the hardest for the government to justify. Of course, there isn’t really such a thing as regulated anti-white supremacist speech, because as I suggested, the issue is a very one-sided one, which makes it confusing. But it seems clear that the state here is prohibiting a certain expression because of its viewpoint. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/35 "2010-04-26T21:14:14Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > The license plate he already had and was wanting to change over from? MASSACRE Arizona allows/allowed eight-character license plates? Here in Texas, we just recently got seven-character plates (up from six), but I’ve only seen the ones with state-issued license numbers. I guess we probably have seven-character personalized plates but I haven’t seen one yet. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/36 "2010-04-26T21:21:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Is viewpoint neutral a legal term? Could someone explain it for us non-legal-knowledge-having types, please? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/37 "2010-04-26T21:26:06Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Arizona allows/allowed eight-character license plates? NC does. Don’t know about Arizona. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/38 "2010-04-26T21:35:05Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Because that’s what the requirement for viewpoint neutrality means. You don’t compare, for the purposes of constitutionality, one bit of speech to another bit of speech you consider equally offensive or analogous. You compare it to similar speech coming from the other side of the same argument, and you make sure that the government’s actions are completely neutral as to which side of the issue a speaker is coming from. If the government isn’t regulating or can’t regulate anti-Christian/Islamic/Jewish speech, neither can it regulate pro-X/Y/Z speech; if it bans anti-war protests it can’t allow pro-war protests, and so on. The important point is that it not make any allowances for one side of the issue that it doesn’t make for another. > > And if the government isn’t regulating or can’t regulate anti-white supremacist speech (which I termed speech promoting racial harmony), then it can’t regulate pro-white supremacist speech, either, because that would be discrimination based on the speaker’s viewpoint, which is considered the worst kind of discrimination and the hardest for the government to justify. > > Of course, there isn’t really such a thing as regulated anti-white supremacist speech, because as I suggested, the issue is a very one-sided one, which makes it confusing. But it seems clear that the state here is prohibiting a certain expression because of its viewpoint. You analysis makes sense if you are talking about a bumper sticker, but is not the same for a license plate. The state cannot prevent you from sayings something, but it can and should limit what it says for you. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/39 "2010-04-26T21:56:04Z")
What does the difference between a bumper sticker and a license plate have to do with the question you asked, **Strassia**? > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Is viewpoint neutral a legal term? Could someone explain it for us non-legal-knowledge-having types, please? OK, you’re the government. There are lots of reasons you might want to regulate somebody’s expression. Some reasons would have nothing to do with what was actually being said at all – you can’t have your rock concert on the sidewalk in this residential neighborhood in the middle of the night. Those restrictions are content-neutral. Other restrictions do have something to do with the actual content of the speech (are not content-neutral). These could be still be for lots of reasons, but we’re generally a lot more suspicious of them no matter what. A content based restriction would be something like “No picketing on the sidewalk, unless it’s labor-related” or “No abortion demonstrations.” It doesn’t ban all speech, just speech that falls into a particular category based on the actual kinds of ideas being expressed. Among the content-based reasons for making regulations, _viewpoint_ discrimination is the kind that gets the most suspicion of all. This means that not only are you regulating based on the content of what’s being expressed, you’re also taking an additional step and regulating based on the opinion or the position being taken. “No anti-war protests,” or “no anti-abortion demonstrations” (as opposed to banning both pro-and anti-) for instance. Viewpoint-neutral means that the regulation is not engaging in this kind of discrimination. Strictly speaking, it isn’t true that all government action _must_ be content-neutral or viewpoint-neutral, but as shorthand that’s often the way it’s talked about because it is very very difficult to justify that kind of restriction, and the assumption is that if the regulation isn’t content-neutral, it’s probably unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422/40 "2010-04-26T22:18:01Z")
Thanks! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/14cv88-banned-as-racially-offensive/537422.md?page=3)