# Texas License Plates and SCOTUS **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2015, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769 "2015-03-23T13:26:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/81 "2015-04-02T13:09:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is an official tag issued by the state. Of course it carry’s the state’s approval. Does that mean the state likes golf the most? No. I don’t see how the state can be endorsing a message if the state also endorses a different or opposite message. If they allow “I’d Rather Be Golfing” but did not allow “Hockey RULZ”, then the state is approving one message but not another. That is content-based censorship and forbidden by the First Amendment. If they allow “Choose Life” but do not allow “Choose Abortion” then that is also content-based censorship and not allowed. If they allow “Liberty and Justice for All” but do not allow “Sons of the Confederacy” that is also content-based censorship. > [@](#): > > The example was not meant to be a perfect metaphor for this issue. I am merely pointing out that people would care that you let a sign on your property no matter what protestations you made that you could not control the content of the message (if that were the case). If you accept money to put signs up then those signs do reflect on you to some extent. It doesn’t make any difference if stupid people think that the state is endorsing one thing by allowing all kinds of things on licence plates. Offering a forum for all comers does not constitute endorsing any one of them, including the ones with which you disagree. The state is not endorsing any candidates by listing them on an official ballot. The state is not endorsing any specific viewpoint by inviting public comment on a bill before the legislature. The state is not endorsing golf by allowing people to put “I’d Rather Be Golfing” on their licence plates. The state is not speaking here. It is allowing citizens to speak in a specific way, and if it allows one viewpoint, under the First Amendment it must allow all others. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/82 "2015-04-02T16:08:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The state is not speaking here. As I cited up-thread it seems at least some on the Supreme Court think this is hybrid speech and thus the state is speaking and it matters. Clearly the SCOTUS is wrestling with this one so it is not as cut-and-dried as you might have it. I will be very interested to see what the SC does with this. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/83 "2015-04-02T17:58:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > As I cited up-thread it seems at least some on the Supreme Court think this is hybrid speech and thus the state is speaking and it matters. I already gave my reasons why Sotomayor is pretty clearly wrong. Even if it is hybrid speech, the state is not allowed content-based censorship. If the state is implicitly endorsing a message, they may not refrain from implicitly not endorsing another message, based on its content. The First Amendment means it is all or none. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/84 "2015-04-02T18:02:21Z")
The other issue is what exactly constitutes political or religious speech? Some issues may be no question: pro life/choice, pro/anti homosexuality, Christian/Jewish/Islam plates, etc. If we (or SCOTUS) agree that a state must provided all plates if it is a religious/political issue e.g. if the state issues a pro-life then it must issue a pro-choice plate or if it offers one for Christians it must offer one or Zoroasteranists, then what about fracking? The state is pro-fracking but I am anti-fracking. So if it offers a pro fracking plate, is the issue suitably political enough to force them to offer me an anti-fracking plate? Like my earlier example, Colorado offers plates for some animal-support organizations. Is that political enough so Mrs Cad can force them to offer one for her support of wolf sanctuaries? ---
**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:** [April 2, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/85 "2015-04-02T18:11:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I already gave my reasons why Sotomayor is pretty clearly wrong. Even if it is hybrid speech, the state is not allowed content-based censorship. > > If the state is implicitly endorsing a message, they may not refrain from implicitly not endorsing another message, based on its content. The First Amendment means it is all or none. > > Regards, > Shodan So, the Boy Scouts having a plate design that says “Duty, Honor, blah blah blah” is equally valid as a KKK design that says “Lynching Niggers Since 1865”? I suppose I could live with that, since it would certainly mean the elimination of ALL but one official state license plate design. Are you ok with the state eliminating free speech for EVERYONE in this format because they would rather do that than eliminate some specific offensive speech? If so, we can agree. We all pay extra for it, though, as the state will probably have to replace what’s probably a rather lucrative revenue stream. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/86 "2015-04-02T20:24:28Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Are you ok with the state eliminating free speech for EVERYONE in this format because they would rather do that than eliminate some specific offensive speech? > > If so, we can agree. We all pay extra for it, though, as the state will probably have to replace what’s probably a rather lucrative revenue stream. No, I would prefer to continue to allow the speech for everyone. That continues the revenue stream, and does not impose content-based censorship. A win-win. I am still surprised when people say “nobody can exercise their rights because somebody might not like it”. I shouldn’t be, but I am. Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [April 2, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/87 "2015-04-02T20:45:34Z")
I feel lucky I’m not in the business of drawing lines between “acceptable” and “too offensive”. Personally, I think I would allow a Sons of the Confederacy plate because I think that it’s not too offensive . But one advocating murder based on skin color? That’s over the line for me, on a product offered for sale by the state. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/88 "2015-04-02T20:51:42Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > IBut one advocating murder based on skin color? That’s over the line for me, on a product offered for sale by the state. Then why did you suggest it? Regards, Shodan ---
**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:** [April 2, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/89 "2015-04-02T22:09:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then why did you suggest it? > > Regards, > Shodan I was trying to choose an outrageous example that we could agree on. I failed. Do you believe this form of free speech is so compelling that states without a custom plate option should be obligated to offer it? ---
**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:** [April 2, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/90 "2015-04-02T22:14:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The Supreme Court seems to be thinking this amounts to “hybrid” speech: So, as long as the plate is on my Prius, I should be okay? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/91 "2015-04-02T22:50:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, I would prefer to continue to allow the speech for everyone. That continues the revenue stream, and does not impose content-based censorship. A win-win. > > I am still surprised when people say “nobody can exercise their rights because somebody might not like it”. I shouldn’t be, but I am. > > Regards, > Shodan Surely you can think of something so patently offensive or pornographic that you would agree could be banned on an Official Texas state license plate, right? I’m not even talking about the numbers and letters spelling out something bad (which my state, and I believe all others ban), I’m talking about a theme to the plate. You are saying that nothing is so bad that Texas cannot exclude it because they issue more than one plain vanilla plate? Okay, I’ll try. Suppose a group gets enough signatures to get a plate that says “Come to Texas” and in the background is a female porn star (with a watermark in the shape of the state of Texas) getting a facial from 3 guys surrounding her. Are you saying that Texas MUST, under the federal constitution, offer that plate for sale and display on the back of motor vehicles? We can keep getting more absurd and disgusting from here if we must, but lets just stick with that one. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/92 "2015-04-02T22:53:18Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I feel lucky I’m not in the business of drawing lines between “acceptable” and “too offensive”. Personally, I think I would allow a Sons of the Confederacy plate because I think that it’s not too offensive . I agree with this as well. I don’t think the Sons of the Confederacy plate is so patently offensive that the state SHOULD ban it. But I believe that is a legislative decision that is permissible to make under the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/93 "2015-04-03T01:34:43Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I agree with this as well. I don’t think the Sons of the Confederacy plate is so patently offensive that the state SHOULD ban it. But I believe that is a legislative decision that is permissible to make under the constitution. What if you are a person who despises everything the Confederate Flag stands for? The point being is that you being ok with it should not be the measure it is judged by. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/94 "2015-04-03T16:26:10Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Those plates are not government speech. If they were, then plates such as God Bless Texas may be an impermissible mingling of church and state. > [@RitterSport](#): > > They still have the Choose Life plate, though, and the God Bless Texas. Also, Calvary Hill, with a bunch of crosses on it. That last one really seems to blur the lines between church and state, assuming it’s Texas speech that’s on the license plate. The Supreme Court has decided that statements like “In God We Trust” and “God Bless America” are [Ceremonial Deism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism), and do not constitute a violation of the establishment clause. Basically, they’re such weak-sauce as far as religious statement goes, that they don’t really mean anything about religious belief, they’re just part of history and culture. Like saying “God bless you” when someone sneezes. > [@Justice Brennan](#): > > …I would suggest that such practices as the designation of “In God We Trust” as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow’s apt phrase, as a form a “ceremonial deism,” protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content. I’m not sure I agree with that reasoning personally, but it is the law of the land. ETA: Oops, I failed to read page 2, and I see that this was already mentioned. Lord forgive me. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/95 "2015-04-03T16:49:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What if you are a person who despises everything the Confederate Flag stands for? > The point being is that you being ok with it should not be the measure it is judged by. No, it shouldn’t be one person, but it ends up being a committee and a majority vote. Either that, or some list of forbidden words and phrases, and a list of descriptions of forbidden images. Or the opposite, lists of approved words and images. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/96 "2015-04-03T19:09:22Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > The Supreme Court has decided that statements like “In God We Trust” and “God Bless America” are [Ceremonial Deism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism), and do not constitute a violation of the establishment clause. Basically, they’re such weak-sauce as far as religious statement goes, that they don’t really mean anything about religious belief, they’re just part of history and culture. Like saying “God bless you” when someone sneezes. > > I’m not sure I agree with that reasoning personally, but it is the law of the land. > > ETA: Oops, I failed to read page 2, and I see that this was already mentioned. Lord forgive me. Did you see the Calvary Hill plate? It seems to go beyond ceremonial deism, what with the crosses and all. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2015, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/97 "2015-04-07T16:43:13Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Did you see the Calvary Hill plate? It seems to go beyond ceremonial deism, what with the crosses and all. To be clear, I don’t really agree with the idea of “ceremonial deism”, but I think that a license plate with crosses on it that is available (but not required) falls under it. There’s a long distance between ornamental religious art displayed by individuals and produced by the state in a limited context and really problematic church/state mingling. That said, I think that it’s dumb for states to do this. Either they should produce only clearly secular license plates and let people who want to display their religion on their cars buy bumper stickers, or they should print _any_ design that passes a content-neutral process and has enough people pre-order, or they should establish standards for design and construction and let private parties make license plates. Any of those solutions seems better than the current one where the state is making value judgments about which sorts of messages can be put on a license plate. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/98 "2015-06-18T17:49:28Z")
Well, the result is in. License plates are government speech and governments can say whatever the heck they want (or, can’t be forced to say what they don’t want, I guess). > **[Supreme Court Says Texas Can Reject Confederate Flag License Plates...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/supreme-court-says-texas-can-reject-confederate-flag-license-plates.html)** > > The court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday that specialty license plates are the government’s speech and are thus immune from First Amendment attacks. Clarence Thomas sided with the usual liberal majority on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/99 "2015-06-18T18:00:15Z")
I think Alito’s dissent is very persuasive. I hope this case will be limited to license plates and other spaces of traditional government messaging (as the majority implies). But it sure does seem like a slippery slope toward censorship on buses, billboards, and whatever else the government decides to pay for and lease out space for privately-designed messages. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769/100 "2015-06-18T18:21:16Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But it sure does seem like a slippery slope toward censorship on buses, billboards, and whatever else the government decides to pay for and lease out space for privately-designed messages. Why would the government get into the billboard business? Just to be able to censor speech? The government has a legitimate reason to issue license plates, it has no reason to be in the outdoor advertising business. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/texas-license-plates-and-scotus/715769.md?page=6)