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.
Yes, some advocates on NPR are private people. But, some of them are NPR employees. Are they not “the government”?
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.
I agree. How about the simple standard in the Constitution: don’t restrict speech.
I would be more sympathetic to this POV if Planned Parenthood had asked for a certain message and been rebuffed.
My problem is that he’s going beyond his powers IMHO.
Except I don’t think they are “denying” anything to the opposing view. From the article:
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? )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.**
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.
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.”
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”.
The government does not run NPR stations. The government has no input into who appears on All Things Considered.
All non-profit groups are eligible to apply for various state and federal grants and loans, but that doesn’t make them “government sponsored”.
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.
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?
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).
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, 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.
First, the President can’t stack the board of directors, which you would know if you had actually read my post.
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.
“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.
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.
)