You are suggesting there is no limit to this. If the state allows one message then it must allow all messages.
So, Planned Parenthood should be allowed to get on license plates and sell stuff in the store in the state capitol. They allow Choose Life plates so, since the state can’t take sides or prefer one message over another PP can get in on that action.
Since confederates are allowed so too then Nazis should be allowed. Better still, ISIS. The Muslim Brotherhood. Take your pick…
I have never said anything of the sort. Either you’re misreading my posts, or I’m screwing them up. Please quote the specific sentence(s) that you are referring to.
I can’t find a pro-choice one. 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.
My contention would be if they allow some symbolism but not others. Allowing a Christian cross or Star of David but not an Islamic Crescent. Even for non-religious symbols I think it would be a violation if they allowed pro-life but not pro-choice.
Maybe it is not as contentious as the Rebel Flag but here in Colorado they have gotten plates to support shelter pets, greyhounds, raptor sanctuaries and horse development but wolves sanctuaries continually get rejected for a specialty plate because wolves are considered vermin. Is that a violation of free speech if I contribute to wolf sanctuaries?
Well, they have the Calvary one that has crosses, but I can’t find any with the Star of David or an Islamic Crescent (or, whatever Hindus would want). Also, I’m pretty sure Choose Life is a pro-life plate, but I can’t find a pro-choice plate.
Interesting question about wolf sanctuaries – all the more reason to get rid of these stupid plates.
It seems unlikely that the scope is so wide-open that the state would have to (for example) issue a swastika-and-middle-finger licence plate if they got enough requests.
I don’t know of anything illegal to display on a bumper sticker unless it’s illegal to publish for other reasons (e.g. obscenity, state secrets).
Right, but the middle finger is obviously offensive, and the swastika is much more widely condemned than the Confederate battle flag. Also, they may find it harder to defend if they had statues of Nazis and celebrated middle finger day. Also, other states having a swastika and middle finger license plate may make it hard to say that those images are obviously offensive.
I know you’re joking (and I like the Onion article), but it brings up a relevant point. What is the difference between the swastika and Confederate battle flag? Bridget Burke seems to have a visceral reaction to the Confederate battle flag, just as many do to the swastika. Who is to say she’s wrong and the Sons are right?
I would argue that the other states with the battle flag indicate that it’s not as bad (from a overall societal opinion) than the swastika.
I find this to be an interesting freedom of expression question (state expression, personal expression), but it’s not generating that much interest from others, so I’ll probably let the thread die at this point.
I find it to be an issue of free speech. I don’t see how the state (in the form of the DMV) has the right to deny a plate design based only on content. I think those celebrating the confederate flag are celebrating hatred, bigotry and slavery. I also think they have a fundamental first amendment right to do so.
Here in PA, the standard license plate design had “You’ve Got A Friend In” above the plate number and “Pennsylvania” below. AFAIK under PA law, plates are only required on the rear of the vehicle. The front can instead have an ornamental plaque or whatnot. Naturally, many Christians got a plate reading JESUS and mounted it in front. Thus, their plates read “You’ve Got A Friend In, Jesus”. I often wondered if the state would sell plates reading “Allah” or something else. I know I never saw one.
First, I think Roy Sheider would have disagreed rather strongly with you. He was very much in favor of killing Jaws.
Second, ‘Kill Jews’ is not legal speech (far as I know anyhoo). It’s a call to commit an illegal act, namely murder. I’m a Jew (have been since I fell out of my Yiddishe Mameh some forty years ago). I would strongly support the right for a vanity plate sharing the owner’s hatred of Jews- so long as that speech stayed within the wide boundaries of the law. You want a plate reading NOJEWS or IH8JEWS? I support your right to get one.
So there is nowhere the line is drawn for you? NAMBLA should get a license plate? ISIS? The KKK? The list can be a long one.
The First Amendment prevents the government from restricting your right to free speech. It does not mean the government has to provide you with a stage to say what you want.
I have no right to walk onto the floor of the Senate and speak my mind. It is not a restriction of my free speech rights for the government to stop me from doing that. I do not see how license plates are any different.
If you want to stand in your front yard and speak your mind that is your right. You do not get to expect the state to provide you with a means or forum to speak your mind.
I recall an observation of irony some while back based on the old meme that license plates are made by people confined to the stripey hole, and in New Hampshire, they would be stuck with stamping out plates that say “Live Free or Die”.
But if it does provide the stage, it can’t pick (or is at least restricted in how it picks) which types of messages can be given from it. If, say, a school district allows the high school gym to be rented by community groups on the weekend, it can’t allow only churches to use it, nor can it ban churches from using it.
For me the line is drawn at speech that is already illegal.
I spent birth to age 16 in northern Virginia. I got called “jew boy” often. One night at synagogue, we learned a cross had been burned on the lawn of a member family. I still support a Ku Klux Klan license plate.
But , as Lord Feldon said, they already provide plates to some groups making legal speech. The constitution prevents them from denying that right to ANY group making legal speech.
They already provide a means to some groups. To deny that to any group that is making legal speech is unconstitutional.
So since Congress has invited people to speak to them (such as Benjamin Netanyahu most recently) they have opened the door to allow anyone to demand equal time to talk to them? Congress provided him (and others before) a stage with which to speak so now they cannot restrict who speaks?
Does the gift shop in the state capitol have to sell merchandise from any group that demands shelf space?
No matter how many they’ve approved, I’d be ver surprised if thay hadn’t rejected some. I’ve heard of many cases where various DMVs have rejected plates deemed to be offensive or obscene, for instance a plate containing “FUCK” in any context.
So I’d say the numbers that were approved or rejected are irrelevant. The 3 relevant questions are:
Do they have reasonable criteria for rejecting certain designs?
Has the state been uniformly, or arbitrarily, been enforcing those criteria?
True, but if the government provides one group with such a stage, they must provide it to all, even if they have a different message.
The government does not get to pick and choose based on content. They can limit it on practical grounds - laws against loudspeakers, etc. - but not on the grounds that they don’t like the Sons of Confederate Soldiers.
Nobody has the right to address the Senate at will. But if the Senate were to invite public comment at some point, they could not say “We are considering a bill to limit abortion - you may address the body if you are in favor of the limits, but not otherwise”.