It’s arguable that having a message on a license plate “forces” some people to read it, for instance, state troopers who are about to give you a ticket or are looking for a similar car that was involved in a crime. And in my experience lots of people look at plates to try deciphering what seem to be abbreviated messages on plates. I read a story long ago that the PA DMV revoked the license LGDAS because someone complained it was an acronym for “Let’s Get Drunk And Screw.”
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Is there a difference between a bumper sticker and a custom license plate that express the same message other than the latter having some level of official approval since the plate is technically a government document?
[/QUOTE]
I have never met or heard of anyone who thought that the sentiments on a vanity licence plate had been “officially approved” in any realistic sense. AFAICT it is no different from a bumper sticker - just another venue to express one’s sentiments.
As mentioned earlier, the government is not in the business of approving messages that the citizenry want to send. If the government offers a venue for speech of some kind, like a vanity licence plate, then they are expressly forbidden from approving some messages and disallowing others.
If you get a vanity plate that says “EATATJOS”, it would be naive to believe that the goverment was officially endorsing Joe’s Restaurant on any level. A vanity plate can express whatever you want - pick a message from a list supplied by the state, or make up your own.
Regards,
Shodan
But isn’t the question if the state allows “EATATJOS” but not “EATATMCDS” because they are anti-fast food, that there is a restriction on free speech vs the states interest in curbing obesity?
If I understand you correctly, yes, that would be a restriction on free speech. It would be up to the state to prove that the interest in curbing obesity wasd compelling, and that it could not be achieved in any other way than outlawing speech in support of McDonald’s.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s simply unquestionable that states can censor vanity plates. They can – they will not allow you to have a FUCK U plate. It is unquestionably a restriction of free speech as well, yet it happens.
They can censor obscenities. Can they censor political speech? What is political speech? Could they censor “GWB BAD”? What about “FUCKGWB”? And this is different than a vanity plate where you can choose what letters it says. Here, you get to have an different background and everything. Is that government speech or not? That’s what the court case is for. I could easily see it going either way.
I’d bet if the KKK wanted a plate design that said “Kill all the Niggers” so their members could buy it that nobody here would be asking if it was ok to turn that down, and it would in fact be turned down.
As I said, it all depends on the reasonableness of the criteria for rejecting a design. It’s also possible their criteria is so badly thought out or arbitrarily applied that if the KKK appealed, they might win (hard to imagine, but possible).
The Supreme Court seems to be thinking this amounts to “hybrid” speech:
While we may be able to assume it is not the state “saying” the things on the license plate it is lending them its imprimatur.
If I put a sign in your front yard that says something vile do you think people will be mollified if you tell them it isn’t your speech but Whack-a-Mole’s who paid you $100 to put it there?
I am guessing no.
So a license saying “I’d Rather Be Golfing” has the imprimatur of the state, and they are endorsing golf over any other sport?
It doesn’t matter if they are mollified or not - I have the right to put the sign in your yard, and you don’t have the right (in the analogy) to pick and choose messages based on content.
Private indviduals can decide whether or not to participate in messaging with which they disagree - or at least they will under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - but the state may not.
Regards,
Shodan
I think this thread is moving away the OP. Certainly there is the issue if I want a license plate to read “NO FRKNG” (fracking is very controversial here in Colorado) and the state denies it because the state policy is to support fracking.
The issue in the OP is having the state issue a plate that recognizes a particular political position. Whereas I can argue my “NO FRKNG” plate indicates a personal view and not the state’s view, if the energy company gets the state to issue an official “pro fracking” vanity plate complete with a picture of an injection well and the caption “Fracking for Colorado’s Energy Future” similar to what the OP is discussing then that is clearly the state engaging in political speech.
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. Yet clearly the justices of the Supreme Court are struggling with this because they do not see it as only the person talking. The state absolutely can and should care what is going on its official licenses.
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.
So too with the state. If they accept money for personalized plates then no amount of throwing their hands up and saying they have no control over the message can completely absolve them because it does reflect on the state. The Supreme Court sees this even if you do not.
If the Sons of the Confederacy win then the states should get out of the personalized plates business forthwith. Then the Sons of the Confederacy can explain how they ruined it for everyone because they didn’t get their way.
Under that theory, how is “God Bless Texas” then not a violation of separation of church and state?
Then I guess a plate with “Christ the Savior,” “Worship every Sunday,” or “In God We Trust” would be outlawed? Does any state have something like this now?
Yes, they have the Texas Calvary Hill plate.
I think the Sons would argue that since other states already have that exact same plate, it’s not the end of civilization.
-
We don’t have “separation of church and state”, so it can’t be violated. We have the 1st amendment, which is not exactly the same thing.
-
That particular phrase would fall under “ceremonial Deism”. Similar to “In God we Trust” on the currency.
-
You might run into trouble with “Christ is Lord”, but you might not as long as you allowed all religious statements of similar sentiment as well as atheist statements.
Georgia has an “In God We Trust” plate. (Well, not really - it’s a sticker that goes across the bottom, in the spot that’s otherwise filled by the registering county’s name). We also have a Sons plate with the Battle Flag design.
I agree with this and I think that the Court will as well. They will craft a new doctrine of hybrid government/personal speech. It’s not purely government speech because it can be personalized in over 400 ways, yet it is not entirely personal speech because it is a government plate, issued by the state, with the state name on it.
No way will they side with the argument that specialty plates must allow for absolutely any crude message that the mind can think of. However, I don’t think that the state could be overly arbitrary in what it refuses.
This hybrid rule would probably allow Texas to ban the SOC plates. But I would think that if they have a Christian license plate, they must allow other religious plates. It will be interesting to see this new doctrine.
Doesn’t matter.
If the SCOTUS decides that the state cannot discriminate then anything goes for ALL states (not just Texas).
As a result all states will have to choose whether to allow anything anyone can dream up on their license plates or they all stop the personalized plates and go back to a generic state tag.
Maybe the Supreme Court will be able to carve out some middle ground (I am betting they will). Will be interesting to see what happens since this weirdly crosses conservative and liberal lines.
I am willing to bet if the SCOTUS allows the ban on SOC plates to continue the Texas legislature will vote to override their DMV and allow the plates.
(Unless the SCOTUS find SOC plates themselves unconstitutional but not seeing how that could be done or work.)