How can anyone argue in favor of prohibiting speech in the name of preserving free speech? The 1st Amendment doesn’t instruct the government to create what it sees as balance. On the contrary, it prohibits the government from doing so: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”
Note that various governmental entities choose to give verbal preference to particular POVs all the time. E.g., any official pronouncement is a way for the government to support the expression of a particular POV. A state has as much right to speak out in favor of not killing fetuses as it does to speak out in favor of not discriminating racially or of driving safely.
Since I’m pro-choice, I’m not happy that South Carolina chose to favor a pro-life message. Nevertheless, this decision strikes me as an abuse of the 1st Amendment by an activist, presumably pro-choice judge. In addition to his backward interpretation of the 1st amendment, the judge had to ignore the Circuit Court to even allow the plaintiff standing to sue.
This judge was appointed by Jimmy Carter. When you hear Republicans call for the appointment of strict construcitonist judges, it’s not code. it’s about decisions like this one.
So, no State may place any sort of saying on it’s licence plates, because anyone who disagrees with that saying will not have the same chance to respond?
Well, December, one part of the issue is a religious one. I trust I don’t have to remind you that states, if they enter into a religious quagmire at all, are obliged to treat the various parties evenhandedly, do I?
Another part is that the state is making available an opportunity for one side to express its views, but not making an equal opportunity available to the opposing side.
A law affirming that all ministers are free to say whatever they like in sermons, so long as they do not criticize the incumbent government, would be on its face an affirmation of freedom of speech – but in application a violation of it.
I see the same problem at hand here – it’s not giving the Pro-Life people the opportunity to express their views on their license plates that is a problem; it’s that they have the exclusive privilege to do so, by state action.
Nonsense. The only way it is unconstitutional is if the state denies a petition by pro-choice folk to have a license plate of their own. If they never bother to try, then they lose out. Simple as that.
My guess is unless there’s more to this story than meets the eye (and I’m sure there is), it will get overturned.
Abortion debates inevitably turn to religion. The message is basically a religious one. Most pro-lifers are fundamentalist christians. Printing that message on license plates is establishing religion.
So, it’s not quite just a case of the Pro-Life League of South Carolina having its plate for its members, and the South Carolina Reproductive Freedom Association having its plate for its members, but of the state officially showing a preference for one point of view over the other.
I am inclined to agree with December. I don’t think abortion is a religious issue , per se, though of course religion affects the views of many people about it.
I don’t see why the government is constitutionally obligated to be balanced towards both sides on a political issue. I am also pro-choice btw.
Right. However, even though some us disagree with the state’s preference here, I cannot see how the 1st Amendment could prefent the state from showing a preference. I wish the judge had been more clever in his shredding of the Constitution.
I sympathize with those who don’t like this state action. I don’t like it, either. But, the fact that we don’t like something doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
This reminds me of Ray Bradbury’s novel Farenheit 451, where firemen of the future burned books, rather than put out fires. Judge Bertelsman’s 1st Amendment requires the government to restrict speech. rather than require the government to keep it’s hands off. Those of you who think the decision is correct are invited to explain the chain of reasoning referring to the Constitutional wording itself.
BTW I can understand Planned Parenthood pursuing this case, although they should be more concerned about the right to abortion than about the right to express a diffrerent view. The ACLU is usually Planned Parenthood’s ally, but I wonder what they will do here.
As for the religious possibility, note that the judge did not use religion as a pretext. IMHO he would have had a stronger case that way, although I still wouldn’t agree.
Hmmm…So, I take it you would support the right of the state legislature to establish a specialty license plate with the motto “Vote for the Democrats”?
I will note that the SCOTUS ruled against Wisconsin when a citizen of that state refused to have the state motto (Eat Cheese or Die) on his license plate. The Court ruled the state could only go so far as to require the tags for the prupose of identification but could not require a citizen to express any view.
My view is that license plates are for that narrow purpose and should not be carrying any other mesages of any kind. The plates of DC now say “Taxation without representation” which makes me want to puke.
I don’t understand what there is to debate here. We’re talking about specialty plates–it’s not like everybody in South Carolina would be forced to have “Choose Life” on their cars if the judge hadn’t struck it down. Instead of having a judge rule it out, why not just let Planned Parenthood and various other pro-choice groups have a specialty plate of their own, too?
So what’s the big deal, December? Pro-choice groups apparently can have their own plates if they want, along with NASCAR and everybody else.
I really don’t see what the problem is with a “Choose Life” plate, other than the OP’s patented knee-jerk reaction to anything that comes from the Democrats.
** Like that has anything to do with anything in the article?
Polycarp – “Another part is that the state is making available an opportunity for one side to express its views, but not making an equal opportunity available to the opposing side.”
MEBuckner-- “So, it’s not quite just a case of the Pro-Life League of South Carolina having its plate for its members, and the South Carolina Reproductive Freedom Association having its plate for its members, but of the state officially showing a preference for one point of view over the other.”
I have to go with Duck Duck Goose here – the opportunity exists for any special interest group to have a pet legislator introduce a ‘vanity’ plate endorsing any cause under the sun. The existence of ‘Veteran’ plates do not, by existence, establish a govermnental prohibition of the speech of anti-war activists, for example, but merely identify the opinion or affiliation of whoever is willing to pay extra for the option. The existence of such plates is silly, regardless of what they identify, and speak more to a government that is so revenue happy that the plates may well be sold to Coca-Cola and Chevrolet ads, but they don’t make an endorsement by government so much as give the lie to any claim of impartial neutrality. The message from government is clear –
‘We don’t care what your message is, just give us the money, and we’ll put it on your license plate.’
Kind of sad, really, but a mercenary government can’t afford to discriminate.
I fail to see how this is shredding the First Amendment. You have to understand that there are three types of speech. Speech, which is like talking, which BTW, is the most protected of the three types. Then there is Speech Plus, which is talking, and actions. And finally, there is Symbollic Speech (?). The least protected. By putting “Pro-Life” or whatever on a South Carolina License Plate, is demonstrating that the GOVERNMENT of SOUTH CAROLINA, is actively SUPPORTING “Pro-Life.” Now, I understand that might be quite a stretch for you, but that doesn’t violate the constitution at all. Technically, license plates represent the government, and therefore show affiliations. That’s not even coming close to “shredding the constitution” as you so aptly put it. That would be symbollic speech, and there are very few laws protecting symbollic speech, e.g. burning a flag.
Why can’t the Pro-Lifers just be happy with a freakin bumper sticker anyways? Perhaps we need a national Pro-Life Pride day?? Jeez, as if they don’t raise enough hell as it is…
Does the state even have a right to free speech? I’d think not, it’s clear that the state is prohibited from religious speech. But individuals are guranteed the right to religious speech.
Based on what I’ve read in this thread, I don’t have a problem with the court ruling. Legislatures shouldn’t be able to give one side of an issue privileged status to express a particular viewpoint.
As other people pointed out, the pro-life folks in SC are free to organize and have a special plate issued. And they’ll probably do it. Or maybe just stick to bumper stickers.
I wonder what’s to stop the Klan from getting a special plate issued? (Fear of having their tires slashed?)
