At least in Florida.
Damn typo. I blame it on studying German for two years in college. The long e is spelled “ie” in German.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I am the athiest of them all.
Wonder if anyone in Florida has the plate ILUVGOD? Would like to see the ATHEIST plate owner submit a complaint if it exists.
Don’t see how they can recall it - religious freedom and all that jazz. Wonder how they’d go with plates like WICCAN or MUSLIM? If they exist, the ATHEIST guy should be entitled to his - and I’m disgusted with the people who complained. Do they have nothing better to do? Wouldn’t they scream “Persecution!” if they were denied the right to express their religious beliefs? And how does a number plate that says ATHEIST hurt them? Atheists do exist.
Tsk, tsk.
I feel as if I’ve spent much of the past few days popping up in one thread after another, saying things like “Christians try to be nice people. We try not to judge others. We are respectful of differing beliefs and accepting of alternative lifestyles.”
And every time I do, some bunch or other of my co-religionists pop up themselves and try to prove me wrong.
Stuff this for a game of soldiers. I’m going down the pub.
Link to St. Petersburg Times article
According to this, the state has reversed its decision – Miles can keep the plate!
In future, controversial license plates will be reviewed by a committee before cancellation.
← not very athy at all
Steve: Been there, done that, know how you feel. Buy you a drink?
Oh, and after November 2000, the State of Florida has a real problem in trying to tell anyone what’s obscene or offensive.
I guess I’m happy he gets to keep the plate and all, but I don’t see how this was in any way a First Amendment issue. Little help here?
It’s interesting that Florida has “Choose Life” license plates. Some would say that should be a bumper sticker instead of a goverment endorsed plate.
Pete
Personally, between the Elian Gonzalez mess and the Presidential Election Hijack, I’m surprised there are still people who don’t think of Florida as Weird Central. 
I’m glad they decided to review it. From what I heard on NPR this morning, removal of a plate as ‘obscene’ was caused only by a sufficient number of complaints (10?) and wasn’t subject to internal review. It’s a good thing that they changed this policy; if I were an atheist in Florida, I’d probably take it upon myself to report plates that use the words “Christ”, “Jesus”, and heck, words that supported other religions, too. After all, if atheism is obscene, why shouldn’t theism be?
His expression of his spiritual views was curtailed by a spineless bureaucrat who caved in to a bunch of busybodies.
What’s the point of a vanity plate, if not to express oneself?
If it makes us atheists feel better, there’s a story on this page about Vermont denying an obscure Christian message plate, “ROMANS5”, because it might be "offensive or confusing " (my italics added).
Confusing?
I can’t find a site, but last year there was some media about a western WI guy, who traveled into MN often, with WI plates that read VIKSSUC. MN requested WI DMV to pull the plates, and they did. The guy was gonna appeal, and I don’t know how it ended.
Which is all fine . . . but I don’t see how that has anything to do with the First Amendment.
Well…
-
By having vanity plates in the first place, the state has created at least some sort of limited free speech forum. I don’t think there would be any First Amendment problems if a state just said to heck with it and made everyone use a random-looking jumble of letters and numbers–which they won’t do, because I’m pretty sure it costs extra for vanity plates, and that’s a revenue stream–but if they’re going to allow people to express themselves, they have to allow people to express themselves.
-
There might also be an Establishment Clause problem with the state sanctioning “ILUVGOD” but declaring “ATHEIST” to be “offensive”. I wonder if they would allow “PS 1 41”?
Disclaimer: IANAL
Let’s not forget Inglis, the town that banished Satan.
It was a government agency that curtailed his right to express himself in a medium they themselves created. Since his expression contravened no laws limiting the first amendment (e.g., obscenity), the agency had no right to limit it.
If it were a private agency issuing the plate, it would be another story… well, maybe not, since the private agency would, in that case, be acting as an agent of the government.
Maybe becase the “S” and the “5” would look very similar on the license plate?
There’s a real problem with some people trying to shut those with a different view.
Snopes blasts this on the bonsai kitten page.
To quote Dave Barry, we should sell Florida to the Japanese, if we didn’t mind Japan becoming the most heavily armed nation on earth.