Goody! He can keep the plate, but henceforth the state will have a committee of…who…to decide what’s appropriate? It’s still censorship, but now done covertly.
IMHO no plate should be banned. People who want to go around with dirty words on their cars only inform the rest of us what kind of people they are. I don’t like seeing some of the obscene messages on T-shirts either, but I wouldn’t outlaw them. They actually serve as a warning as to the character (or maybe just the immaturity) of the wearer.
I’m an agnostic myself, but I wouldn’t want that on a license plate. It could make me a target where “road rage” is now a syndrome instead of a crime.
Wasn’t there a case where a state tried to ban the word “IRISH” because it violated some law against using ethnic terms on plates? Does anyone know how that turned out?
When the first amendment is mentioned in this thread it is in the context of the freedom of speech. The first amendment also prohibits the government from establishing a state religion. That is why there cannot be prayers in school and why I would go along with banning any tag with religious context as in the examples above. However there would then be a flood of bible text licenses as is also mentioned in this thread, so in the end I’ll go with the state’s final decision. IMHO the tag is actually the property of the state, just as everyone’s mail box is the property of the Postal Service.
However, the first amendment also prohibits the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Getting a personalized license plate with a religious message on it may qualify as exercising ones religion.
That is why I added that sentence about the tag belonging to the state. Remember starting out the state had said that he could have a bumper sticker, but it couldn’t be on his license tag (state property).
Your mailbox is not the property of the Postal Service unless you happen to be renting a PO Box at the central office, or you’re one of those really unusual people for whom the Post Office has erected a box for you.
Kelly: Forgive my tendency to argue the law with lawyers, but I believe there is, or at least was, a section in the U.S.C. that in effect defined a mailbox erected for the purpose of receiving mail as the property of the U.S. Government – not as against the box’s putative owner but for that section, but in order to make any third-party act (theft, damage, etc.) on mail delivered to that box a Federal offense. If anyone knows the truth behind this or has a Westlaw account and feels inclined to check it out, I’d welcome knowing whether it’s accurate.
Johnny, if you’re ever around Santa Monica, you’ll see a whole bunch of “SOD”-related plates, including “SODDIT,” which belongs to one of our teachers.
As regards the PA “pro-life” plates…the legislator who was proposing them (can’t remember his name OTTOMD) claimed the plates wouldn’t be sending a “political message.” Suuuure.
I wish I had a picture of this, but my friend’s housemate’s car has a plate that says “BEE ACH.” Wonder how that slipped through. Wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it myself.
That Florida sure is an interesting place - much different than OUR planet.
I don’t know how many arguments I’ve had with fundamentalists who say they should be able to have public prayers, put the 10 Commandments on the wall, etc. I always ask them how they would feel if they were forced to read atheist stuff in public places. I just love it when the shoe is on the other foot.
The statute in question makes no such declaration. As far as I can tell, the position that “mailboxes are federal property” comes from a statement made by the Postal Inspection Service that “mailboxes are considered federal property”. This statement appears unsupported by the law and is a misleading statement. What the USPIS is saying is that it considers them federal property, not that the law does. Congress is free to create (and in fact has created) offenses related to interfering with the delivery of the mails without claiming any actual property interest in mail receptacles.
According to the historical notes on Cornell’s site, this statute has been around in essentially the same form since 1909.
