# Florida ACLU Participates in Stupid Lawsuit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 28, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117 "2003-05-28T21:04:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/1 "2003-05-28T21:04:04Z")
This is one for the record books: [[http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/28/license.veil.ap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/28/license.veil.ap/index.html)"]Muslim woman fights to keep on veil for driver’s license photo]([http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/28/license.veil.ap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/28/license.veil.ap/index.html)) Yes, ladies and gentlemen, a woman wants to obscure her entire face (except for her eyes) for a driver’s license photo. Quoth the sleazeball who took the case: > [@](#): > > “This is about religious liberty. It’s about whether this country is going to have religious diversity,” said Howard Marks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. What I find spectacularly amusing about this case, is that CNN provides a helpful sidebar about some states that do not practice religious liberty, and their driver’s license photo practices: > [@](#): > > Saudi Arabia: Women aren’t allowed to drive > Iran: Women wear a traditional Shadour, which does not cover the face. > Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures > United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures > Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures > Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures > Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures > Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures > Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures So in seven countries where state policy is based on Islamic law, women have to get their pictures taken with their (gasp) faces showing. If it’s that fucking important to her, she can take a cab. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/2 "2003-05-28T21:37:10Z")
Wasn’t there a similar thing about a year ago? I swear I remember reading a pretty heated debate about it on the boards. Both sides actually had some reasonable arguments, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/3 "2003-05-28T21:44:12Z")
For some Muslims, a woman showing her face is just as taboo as showing her tits. To them, it’s basically nudity. This isn’t as simple as it looks. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/4 "2003-05-28T22:03:47Z")
Yes it is. No one’s forcing her to remove her head cover, UNLESS she wants the privilege of a DL, which MUST be linkable to her in a typical traffic stop. That requires a photo. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/5 "2003-05-28T22:20:51Z")
In my view, the key issue here is that driving is not a right. If some personal belief or religion prevents one from fulfilling the prerequisites of driving, then I guess one doesn’t drive. It’s not like oxygen or food. And yes, there are many places where driving is almost mandatory. I guess these people then need to live elsewhere, where there is usable public transportation. ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/6 "2003-05-28T23:14:55Z")
If this woman does not want to follow state laws which require her to remove her shaw from her face, then she shouldn’t be able to drive. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/7 "2003-05-29T00:33:41Z")
Florida had no problem with her veiled picture on her license before 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![Nanoda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Nanoda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanoda)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/8 "2003-05-29T00:43:01Z")
'squeeze me, she’s obscuring her _eyes_ whilst _driving_??? Did you know Florida has their own tag on fark? ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/9 "2003-05-29T01:10:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reeder \* > Florida had no problem with her veiled picture on her license before 9/11. Just because standards were not properly enforced prior to 9/11 is no reason why they should not be enforced afterwards. Prior to 9/11, people were occasionally allowed to carry blades onto aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![Wonko\_The\_Sane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/258eb7/32.png) [@Wonko\_The\_Sane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wonko_The_Sane)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/10 "2003-05-29T03:05:19Z")
I suspect that if her ID was stolen/shared, it would be very easy to use her photo ID for just about anything, by just about anyone in her height/weight class. Sharing is good, right? ---
**Author:** ![refusal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ac91a4/32.png) [@refusal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/refusal)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/11 "2003-05-29T13:33:34Z")
British [driving licence regulations](http://www.dvla.gov.uk/drivers/photocard_licences.htm#7) require photographs to be “A recent and true likeness, showing the full face, with no hat, helmet or sunglasses”. There are no exceptions, although I wonder how this applies to people who wear turbans for religious reasons, as well as to people wearing veils. [British passport regulations](http://www.ukpa.gov.uk/_2_howtoapply/2_photographs.asp) specifically allow a hat or turban if worn for religious reasons, but again specify “full face”. [US passport regulations](http://travel.state.gov/pptphotos/head_position.html) (and [here](http://travel.state.gov/pptphotos/faqs.html)) say photos should be “full face” but allow “headpieces if worn daily for religious purposes”. Maybe they could allow fingerprints if people don’t want their photo on their licence and passport. Except everyone hates their passport photo, so everyone would take the time-consuming fingerprint-checking option. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/12 "2003-05-29T14:13:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*For some Muslims, a woman showing her face is just as taboo as showing her tits. To them, it’s basically nudity. This isn’t as simple as it looks. \*\* No, it is not nudity. It may be moderate immodesty to some extremists in the Wahhabite camp, but even the Muslim Brotherhood does not support this POV. I do note that the list of countries above can not be characterized as one where Islamic law reigns, e.g. neither Egypt nor Jordan fits that description, for all that there are Sharia inputs. ---
**Author:** ![Wyld\_Stallyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8dc957/32.png) [@Wyld\_Stallyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wyld_Stallyn)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/13 "2003-05-29T15:50:13Z")
Wait, the ACLU is taking up another otiose, frivolous case? :eek: :eek: :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/14 "2003-05-29T17:30:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Miller \* > \*\*Wasn’t there a similar thing about a year ago? I swear I remember reading a pretty heated debate about it on the boards. Both sides actually had some reasonable arguments, IIRC. \*\* Yes, this case already has [its own thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=123412), started last year and resurrected this week. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/15 "2003-05-29T17:45:49Z")
Wheres the fucking debate? Take your mask off and drive, or leave it on and take a fucking bus. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/16 "2003-05-29T21:57:19Z")
Funny how people managed to drive for decades without state-mandated photographs on their licences… Isn’t this universal photo on license thing a relatively recent phenomenon? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/17 "2003-05-29T22:05:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boyo Jim \* > \*\*Yes it is. No one’s forcing her to remove her head cover, UNLESS she wants the privilege of a DL, which MUST be linkable to her in a typical traffic stop. That requires a photo. \*\* No, it doesn’t. Florida has issued over 800,000 non-photo licenses in the past 5 years. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/18 "2003-05-29T22:24:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Munch \* > No, it doesn’t. Florida has issued over 800,000 non-photo licenses in the past 5 years. Now **that** makes this more interesting. Got a cite for what qualifications are necessary to get a non-photo license in Florida? I’ve googled for it, and searched the FL DMV website, and couldn’t see anything to confirm they issue non-photo licenses. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/19 "2003-05-29T22:38:51Z")
Okay, **Munch** , here’s the relevant portion of Florida’s licensing law: > [@](#): > > _[Chapter 322, section 14](http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0322/SEC14.HTM&Title=-%3E2002-%3ECh0322-%3ESection%2014)_ > > (1)(a)\_\_The department shall, upon successful completion of all required examinations and payment of the required fee, issue to every applicant qualifying therefor, a driver’s license as applied for, which license **shall bear thereon a color photograph or digital image of the licensee** ; the name of the state; a distinguishing number assigned to the licensee; and the licensee’s full name, date of birth, and mailing address; a brief description of the licensee, including, but not limited to, the licensee’s gender and height; and the dates of issuance and expiration of the license. A space shall be provided upon which the licensee shall affix his or her usual signature. Bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117/20 "2003-05-29T22:45:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > **Funny how people managed to drive for decades without state-mandated photographs on their licences…** Well it’s a requirement in _this_ decade, and that’s all that matters. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-aclu-participates-in-stupid-lawsuit/178117.md?page=2)