# Prohibiting speech in the name of free speech. Huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 1, 2003, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981 "2003-01-01T02:40:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/41 "2003-01-01T19:30:11Z")
This is private speech on a public forum because the plate is affirmatively chosen by citizens who pay $30 or whatever for the privilege of being able to say “Choose Life” on their vehicles. If it was simply government speech, there would be no citizen involvement in the decision of what they want their vehicles to say. Incidentally, there would be big problems if South Carolina just came back and put “Choose Life” on all its plates. The government can’t compel you to use your private property as the forum for its messages, and thank goodness for that. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/42 "2003-01-01T19:36:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > Those speakers are _not_ the government. They are private people speaking on a government-sponsored forum. Yes, some advocates on NPR are private people. But, some of them are NPR employees. Are they not “the government”? > [@](#): > > If the government starts telling people they _can’t_ talk on NPR due to the content of their speech, _then_ we have a neutrality violation, but not unless the government starts deciding what people can say on that forum. This is a legal fiction, IMHO. Every person with programming responsibility chooses who can or cannot talk on NPR. Content is one of the criteria. E.g., they refused to interview David Brock, after he wrote, “The Real Anita Hill,” although anti-Thomas people had lots of access. (In fact it was an NPR employee who made Anita Hill’s charges public.) So, NPR certainly did make a decision about which POV should receive coverage. > [@](#): > > …boy, you think “neutrality” is a difficult standard? Try “balance.” We’d never hear the end of that one. I agree. How about the simple standard in the Constitution: don’t restrict speech. > [@](#): > > Neutralits is completely simple by comparison: Stay the heck out of the whole mess, and if you create a forum for people to speak their minds, you can’t regulate that forum based on what they want to say. I would be more sympathetic to this POV if Planned Parenthood had asked for a certain message and been rebuffed. > [@](#): > > Of course not. He’s merely charged with upholding the Constitution of the United States. You got a problem with that? My problem is that he’s going beyond his powers IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/43 "2003-01-01T19:39:27Z")
So again what about government posters or even press releases and reports. Citizens can hang them on their private property and make a statement. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/44 "2003-01-01T19:51:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Under the First Amendment, the government must at all times be content-neutral in its regulations of citizens’ speach. In providing a forum for one p.o.v. and denying it to the opposing view, South Carolina abandoned the principle of content neutrality. Therefore, the judge correctly decided that the “Choose Life” plate is unconstitutional. \*\* Except I don’t think they are “denying” anything to the opposing view. From the article: > [@](#): > > The ruling shouldn’t prevent anti-abortion groups from having their own license plates, but it would require going through the regular approval process for other nonprofit groups rather than going through lawmakers, Bertelsman said. IOW, nothing is preventing pro-life groups from getting their own plates. There is evidently an ordinary approval process for nonprofits of which both pro-life and pro-choice groups can avail themselves. The fact that the pro-life side used an alternative process (approval by the NC legislature) does not foreclose the pro-choice side from taking advantage of the same platform. Indeed, I think the pro-choice side would have a better case against the state if they had pursued getting their own plates and were denied, rather than complaining about the grant to their opposition. It’s better to argue for access to a forum than to argue for shutting a forum down. Interestingly **minty** , among the NC plates in the link you provided is one saying “Public Education: A Great Investment.” Should voucher proponents be able to rid the state of this license plate on the ground that it is a denial of a forum to their cause? (PS: Tell your wife thank-you. I think things went reasonably well and am keeping my fingers crossed. Any chance your wife can do a Kevin Nealon-esque “subliminal man” to help my chances? 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/45 "2003-01-01T20:01:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > There is evidently an ordinary approval process for nonprofits of which both pro-life and pro-choice groups can avail themselves. Hmm, so anti-abortion folks just pony up $30, but pro-choice folks have to form a nonprofit and go through some sort of regulatory approval process? Nope, that’s not neutrality. Think of all the cases where only disfavored groups had to get marching permits, for instance. Same thing here. > [@](#): > > Interestingly **minty** , among the NC plates in the link you provided is one saying “Public Education: A Great Investment.” Should voucher proponents be able to rid the state of this license plate on the ground that it is a denial of a forum to their cause? Yes. (Boy, that was easy, huh?) > [@](#): > > (PS: Tell your wife thank-you. I think things went reasonably well and am keeping my fingers crossed. Done, and glad to hear it! Keep me updated! ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/46 "2003-01-01T20:06:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > Yes, some advocates on NPR are private people. But, some of them are NPR employees. Are they not “the government”? No, they’re not. As I understand it, PBS is a private corporation funded in part by the government. Charlie Rose and Nina Totenberg are not government employees. > [@](#): > > How about the simple standard in the Constitution: don’t restrict speech. Exactly. The state restricted the speech of people who wanted to place a different message on their license plates. Fortunately, the First Amendment was there to set things straight. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/47 "2003-01-01T20:13:51Z")
## \*\*\*quote: ## Interestingly minty, among the NC plates in the link you provided is one saying “Public Education: A Great Investment.” Should voucher proponents be able to rid the state of this license plate on the ground that it is a denial of a forum to their cause? Yes. (Boy, that was easy, huh?)\*\*\* Here’s a harder question for you, **minty**. If voucher proponents went to court to rid the state of this license plate, _ **would** they get the same ruling as Planned Parenthood did?_ My guess is no. Conservative judges would follow the circuit court decision and find that the pro-voucher folks had no standing to sue. Liberal judges wouldn’t bend the law to create a conservative outcome. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/48 "2003-01-01T20:16:06Z")
**december** -“I would be more sympathetic to this POV if Planned Parenthood had asked for a certain message and been rebuffed” But as has been gone over by many here, most arguments(including abortion) are not a simple dichotomy. Why should Planned Parenthood get to decide the “other” side of the great license plate debate. Either you should be able to say whatever you want or it should just say the state’s name. Really, your anger should be directed towards legislators that pass unconstitutional laws rather than the judges who must overturn them. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/49 "2003-01-01T20:20:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Hmm, so anti-abortion folks just pony up $30, but pro-choice folks have to form a nonprofit and go through some sort of regulatory approval process? Nope, that’s not neutrality. Think of all the cases where only disfavored groups had to get marching permits, for instance. Same thing here.** Hey, it cost them a lot more than $30 per plate! Legislators are _expensive_! I mean, sure, it doesn’t cost as much to buy a state rep as it does to buy, say, a US Senator, but I’m sure it’s still quite pricey! 🙂 I’m not sure your marching permit example holds. It isn’t like each applicant has to go through a regulatory process; it only has to happen once, and then any pro-choice person who wants his or her plate can just pony up their $30. I think you’d have a better case if they were throwing up obstacles to the regulatory process for a pro-choice plate – that really would be a denial of forum. But I think the pro-choice side is obligated to at least pursue that alternative before they complain that they’re being discriminated against.\*\* > [@](#): > > Yes. (Boy, that was easy, huh?)\*\* I disagree, but, well, there ya go. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/50 "2003-01-01T20:22:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*The state restricted the speech of people who wanted to place a different message on their license plates. Fortunately, the First Amendment was there to set things straight. \*\* I think that does violence to the word “restrict.” They weren’t suing to ask that the state allow their message; instead, they were suing to restrict the message of their opponents. And I think the spirit of the first amendment is better fulfilled by more speech, not less. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/51 "2003-01-01T20:27:36Z")
The CPB is a private non-profit organization that gets federal money, and NPR is not “government-sponsored”, any more than any other non-profit organization that receives federal money is “government-sponsored.” [http://zeus.npr.org/about/about.jhtml](http://zeus.npr.org/about/about.jhtml) > [@](#): > > In 1967, Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act, authorizing the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The Act called on CPB to encourage “the growth and development of noncommercial radio” and to develop “programming that will be responsive to the interests of the people.” NPR was created as a private, non-profit organization to provide leadership in national newsgathering and production and to provide the first permanent nationwide interconnection of non-commercial stations. > > National Public Radio was founded on February 24, 1970, with 90 public radio stations as charter members. [http://www.cpb.org/about/history/uscode.html](http://www.cpb.org/about/history/uscode.html) > [@](#): > > Public Broadcasting Act > Sec. 396. - Corporation for Public Broadcasting > Congressional declaration of policy > > \< snip \> > > Establishment of Corporation; application of District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act > > (b) There is authorized to be established a nonprofit corporation, to be known as the ‘‘Corporation for Public Broadcasting’’, \*\*which will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government. \*\* [bolding mine] > > \< snip \> > > Board of Directors; functions, duties, etc. > > (c)(1) The Corporation for Public Broadcasting shall have a Board of Directors (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘‘Board’’), consisting of 9 members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. No more than 5 members of the Board appointed by the President may be members of the same political party. > > (2) The 9 members of the Board appointed by the President > > (A) shall be selected from among citizens of the United States (not regular full-time employees of the United States) who are eminent in such fields as education, cultural and civic affairs, or the arts, including radio and television; and > > (B) shall be selected so as to provide as nearly as practicable a broad representation of various regions of the Nation, various professions and occupations, and various kinds of talent and experience appropriate to the functions and responsibilities of the Corporation. > > (3) Of the members of the Board appointed by the President under paragraph (1), one member shall be selected from among individuals who represent the licensees and permittees of public television stations, and one member shall be selected from among individuals who represent the licensees and permittees of public radio stations. > > \< snip \> > > Financing restrictions > > (k)(1) (A) There is hereby established in the Treasury a fund which shall be known as the Public Broadcasting Fund (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘Fund’’), to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. Tons of stuff on how their disbursements from the Treasury Department works. But just because they get federal money and the board of directors is officially appointed by the President and Senate doesn’t mean they’re “government”. > **[About Public Media](https://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/what-public-media)** > > America’s system of independent local public radio and television stations > [@](#): > > Who runs the stations? > > Radio: Universities run most public radio stations, such as KUNM-FM, Albuquerque, licensed to the University of New Mexico. These stations usually offer distinct program schedules, since they often are not linked together into statewide or regional multi-station networks. The government does not run NPR stations. The government has no input into who appears on _All Things Considered_. > [@](#): > > Who pays for public broadcasting? > > In FY2000, public broadcasting’s revenue was $2.2 billion. > > The biggest single source of revenue - more than 25 percent - was membership. Subscription contributions to local stations and “Friends of….” groups provide critical support for public broadcasting. > > The Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives an appropriation from the federal government. By law, 95 percent of this money goes to support local television and radio stations, programming, and improvements to the public broadcasting system as a whole. > > Businesses and foundations contribute 22.6 percent of public broadcasting’s revenues. Colleges and universities - both public and private - account for 10.4 percent. > > Less than one-third of public broadcasting’s total revenues comes from tax-based sources such as federal, state, and local governments. The remaining two-thirds is from private sources such as memberships, businesses and foundations. All non-profit groups are eligible to apply for various state and federal grants and loans, but that doesn’t make them “government sponsored”. [http://www.onlinewbc.gov/faq.html#grants](http://www.onlinewbc.gov/faq.html#grants) > [@](#): > > Does SBA have grants for businesses? > > No. The SBA does not provide start-up grants or other grants to individuals or businesses. See Federal grant opportunities at \<[http://www.sba.gov/expanding/grants.html](http://www.sba.gov/expanding/grants.html)\>. SBA does offer a variety of loan programs, which can be found at the following link: > \<[http://www.sba.gov/financing/indexloans.html](http://www.sba.gov/financing/indexloans.html)\> > > The SBA does have a grant program available to private, non-profit organizations to run women’s business centers. These centers provide business training, counseling and other assistance to women business owners and women who want to start businesses. [http://www.fwbac.com/bac/Grants.htm](http://www.fwbac.com/bac/Grants.htm) > [@](#): > > Most grants require a non-profit 501(c)3 [charitable foundation] or 501(c)6 [trade association] tax exempt status that has been approved by the Internal Revenue Service. > Grant funds go to organizations, not individuals. Non-profit corporations do not have owners or shareholders; they are governed by a volunteer Board of Directors who set policy for the organization. All records are accessible to the public and tax returns must be filed with both the IRS and the state in which they are organized. [http://www.cfed.org/individual\_assets/ida/q\_and\_a.html](http://www.cfed.org/individual_assets/ida/q_and_a.html) > [@](#): > > AFIA authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a 5-year, $25 million per year IDA demonstration, through which grants will be made to non-profit organizations on a competitive basis. The federal grant cannot exceed the amount of non-federal matching funds raised for the demonstration, subject to a one million dollar cap. Non-profits may submit their applications in conjunction with a state, local, or tribal government entity, and may collaborate with financial institutions and for-profit community-development corporations to conduct the demonstration. So NPR isn’t “government-sponsored” any more than the Women’s Business Center that got a grant from the SBA is “government-sponsored”. And BTW, December: > [@](#): > > **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.** > **[Cincinnati News, Sports and Things to Do | Cincinnati Enquirer](https://www.cincinnati.com)** > > Breaking Cincinnati news, traffic, weather and local headlines from The Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper. > [@](#): > > Monday, December 06, 1999 > Bertelsman marks 20 years as judge > > Ability to mediate, intellect admired > > BY SUSAN VELA > The Cincinnati Enquirer > > COVINGTON — It’s a time of reflection for U.S. District Judge William O. Bertelsman, celebrating 20 years on the bench this week. > > He was sworn in on Dec. 10, 1979, after his father, former Campbell County Judge Odis W. Bertels man, now deceased, helped him don his robes and the younger jurist read a prayer of Solomon, asking for wisdom from above. > > The judge’s voice catches when he recalls that day and what it meant to him. > > “Nobody would bet a dollar on me, including myself. So I felt when it was given to me, I ought to do it right,” said Judge Bertelsman, a Republican who received the lifetime appointment to the bench from Democrat President Carter. He’s one of you, December! Embrace him! - snerk \* Also: > [@](#): > > Judge Bertelsman plans to semiretire in 2001, allowing him to remain on the bench while the president appoints his successor. Which explains why his name isn’t on the list of judges for the 6th Circuit–I’m guessing this case got put on his plate before he “semi-retired”. [http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/courtinfo/main.php](http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/courtinfo/main.php) Minty, apparently the opinion is not online yet. Their last entries are dated December 23, 2002. [http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions/main.php](http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions/main.php) ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/52 "2003-01-01T20:43:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Either you should be able to say whatever you want or it should just say the state’s name. That’s an interesting position, **CarnalK** , but as I understand it, that’s not what the judge decided. He didn’t object to the state having a list of favored messages. He merelhy objected to a single particular favored message. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > The CPB is a private non-profit organization that gets federal money, and NPR is not “government-sponsored”, any more than any other non-profit organization that receives federal money is “government-sponsored.” > > [http://zeus.npr.org/about/about.jhtmlhttp://www.cpb.org/about/history/uscode.html](http://zeus.npr.org/about/about.jhtmlhttp://www.cpb.org/about/history/uscode.html) > Tons of stuff on how their disbursements from the Treasury Department works. But just because they get federal money and the board of directors is officially appointed by the President and Senate doesn’t mean they’re “government”. Does this mean that Bush could appoint a Conservative Board who allowed only Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to broadcast? That can’t be true, can it? > [@](#): > > He’s one of you, December! [a Republican] Embrace him! You got me there, **DDG**. Good pickup! ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/53 "2003-01-01T20:47:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > I’m not sure your marching permit example holds. It isn’t like each applicant has to go through a regulatory process; it only has to happen once, and then any pro-choice person who wants his or her plate can just pony up their $30. Actually, that’s incorrect. As described by the story in the OP, what happens is that the nonprofit organization (strike one: I ain’t no damn nonprofit organization) applies to the state for the plate design they want (strike two: they have to ask for approval, while anti-abortion folks just say “Give me that message”), then sales of the approved plate are restricted to members of the nonprofit organization (strike three: rationed speech). ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/54 "2003-01-01T20:58:56Z")
**Duckie** , South Carolina is in the Fourth Circuit, not the Sixth. The lawsuit would have been filed in Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. I checked [that court’s website](http://www.scd.uscourts.gov/), but they apparently only make rulings available via PACER, which I hate and refuse to pay for. Bertelsman is a senior district judge, which makes him semi-retired, with a light caseload that allows him to sit by assignment in federal courts around the country. That’s how he heard a case in South Carolina even though he normally sits in Ohio. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/55 "2003-01-01T21:11:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Does this mean that Bush could appoint a Conservative Board who allowed only Rush Limbaugh and his ilk to broadcast? That can’t be true, can it? Um, no, it can’t, for two big reasons. First, the President can’t stack the board of directors, which you would know if you had actually read my post. > [@](#): > > No more than 5 members of the Board appointed by the President may be members of the same political party… > > …shall be selected from among citizens of the United States (not regular full-time employees of the United States) who are eminent in such fields as education, cultural and civic affairs, or the arts, including radio and television; and > > …shall be selected so as to provide as nearly as practicable a broad representation of various regions of the Nation, various professions and occupations, and various kinds of talent and experience appropriate to the functions and responsibilities of the Corporation. And second, NPR is NOT a government agency, the government has no control over it, and the board of directors has no control over programming–programming is run by the stations. Which you would also know if you had actually read my post. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/56 "2003-01-01T21:13:00Z")
“He didn’t object to the state having a list of favored messages. He merelhy objected to a single particular favored message” But surely this sets a precedent and any message reasonably considered political could be successfully challenged. I’m sure the court doesn’t want to ruin the cash cow of people paying extra for a “hang in there kitty” license plate. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/57 "2003-01-01T21:18:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Actually, that’s incorrect. As described by the story in the OP, what happens is that the nonprofit organization (strike one: I ain’t no damn nonprofit organization) applies to the state for the plate design they want (strike two: they have to ask for approval, while anti-abortion folks just say “Give me that message”), then sales of the approved plate are restricted to members of the nonprofit organization (strike three: rationed speech). \*\* Strike one: please, do you really think it’s a stretch to get the local NARAL chapter to sponser plates? Strike two: the anti-abortion folks sought approval, too – from the legislature. Different road, same endpoint. Strike three: OK, this is a really good point and I missed it first time around. How serious it is depends on how tightly they define “member,” and how closely they police it. If I can just walk in and say “I’m a NARAL member, I’d like the pro-choice plate” even though I’ve never been to a meeting, this isn’t much of a problem. At the end of the day, though, I’d still prefer that opposing groups seek to add speech rather than subtract it. It’s better to expound your position than to gag your opponent. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2003, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/58 "2003-01-01T21:22:54Z")
Hey, I’m cool with a wide-open public forum. I shall apply for my “George Bush Sucks” license plate forthwith! ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/59 "2003-01-02T00:12:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Hey, I’m cool with a wide-open public forum. I shall apply for my “George Bush Sucks” license plate forthwith! \*\* Your license plate could be more literally accurate by substituting the name “Monica Lewinsky.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981/60 "2003-01-02T00:20:39Z")
> [@](#): > > ## Of course not. He’s merely charged with upholding the Constitution of the United States. You got a problem with that? > > My problem is that he’s going beyond his powers IMHO. Huh. **December** , you are among the last people on the board that I would have thought of as a Hugo Black absolutist! Well, live and learn! 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prohibiting-speech-in-the-name-of-free-speech-huh/145981.md?page=4)