Full Version: The Government and License Plates...
QUOTE
The state of Utah can't block a woman from using her license plate to tell the world ''GAYSROK,'' a judge has ruled.
QUOTE
''It kind of opens up the door for all types of people who want to make a license plate a public forum, for every initiative,'' he said.
The Story
Questions for Debate:
1.) Can a state prohibit what is said on license plates?
2.) Is trying to limit what is said on license plates a violation of the First Amendment?
3.) Are license plates not "a public forum, for every initiative" already?
1.) Can a state prohibit what is said on license plates?
I sure hope so. Just yesterday, I was incensed by a custom-printed bumper sticker with a prevalent "F Bomb" on it. I am by no means a prude, but I don't think it should be legal to have 4-inch-tall F words on your bumper for the world to see.
Is trying to limit what is said on license plates a violation of the First Amendment?
No, it's reasonable regulation of a public safety issue.
3.) Are license plates not "a public forum, for every initiative" already?
Here is the big question, as they are certainly turning into a venue for speech. The states are so drunk on the funds they raise by selling vanity plates, that they have every special interest in the world demanding their own plate. Whether universities, peace groups, wildlife interests, in Illinois there are dozens of custom plates. Then, you further customize by ordering your own plate word / numbers. It's ridiculous.
License plates are meant to identify your vehicle. In the good old days, a plate of a certain color let law enforcement know from what state that vehicle came. That's it. Get rid of vanity plates, special interest plates, custom lettering, all of it. It's stupid and ultimately likely to cause us to miss some law enforcement opportunities as plates are illegible or mis-identified.
QUOTE
1.) Can a state prohibit what is said on license plates?
You don't even have to finish the sentence. All you have to ask is, "Can a state prohibit what is said-", no, no it can't. Doing so violates the State Constitution of Utah, and the judge was right.
QUOTE
Is trying to limit what is said on license plates a violation of the First Amendment?
Let's do some word substituting here [bold words are the substituted ones]: Is trying to abridge speech on license plates a violation of free speech. Yes....Yes it is.
QUOTE
3.) Are license plates not "a public forum, for every initiative" already?
Listen, I don't like vanity plates...The idea of having CPISGOD on the back of my car is childish to me, but yeah, they are a public forum, and there's nothing the government can do to stop them.CP
1.) Can a state prohibit what is said on license plates?
They sure can. While I found the judges decision to be a little silly, its well within the government's domain to restrict what messages are placed on state property. That license plate is the property of the state.
2.) Is trying to limit what is said on license plates a violation of the First Amendment?
No. The Supreme Court has established in many cases that the freedom of expression is not absolute. The government doesn't own your car, but it does own that license plate. If you want to be risque, put it on a bumper sticker.
3.) Are license plates not "a public forum, for every initiative" already?
Vanity plates have certainly muddied this equation, but its an undeniable source of revenue for the state. The consumer has every right to "request" a ridiculous saying on their plate, but the state has every right to refuse that request.
They sure can. While I found the judges decision to be a little silly, its well within the government's domain to restrict what messages are placed on state property. That license plate is the property of the state.
2.) Is trying to limit what is said on license plates a violation of the First Amendment?
No. The Supreme Court has established in many cases that the freedom of expression is not absolute. The government doesn't own your car, but it does own that license plate. If you want to be risque, put it on a bumper sticker.
3.) Are license plates not "a public forum, for every initiative" already?
Vanity plates have certainly muddied this equation, but its an undeniable source of revenue for the state. The consumer has every right to "request" a ridiculous saying on their plate, but the state has every right to refuse that request.
1.) Can a state prohibit what is said on license plates?
No they can not. I pay for those plates they are mine, not the state's. If they allow anybody to decide what they want on the plate then they must allow anything that does not violate a law such as incitement to commit violence or slander.
2.) Is trying to limit what is said on license plates a violation of the First Amendment?Sure is. I may not like what people put on their plates, but then again I don't have to. In my area we have a person that has a plate with "ARAFAT" on it. Do I like that no I don't. But it is that person's name so they get to have it.
3.) Are license plates not "a public forum, for every initiative" already?Sure looks that way to me. I mean have you seen the new vanity plates from Indiana? Heck I have a hard time telling that they are license plates with all the doodling on them.
No they can not. I pay for those plates they are mine, not the state's. If they allow anybody to decide what they want on the plate then they must allow anything that does not violate a law such as incitement to commit violence or slander.
2.) Is trying to limit what is said on license plates a violation of the First Amendment?Sure is. I may not like what people put on their plates, but then again I don't have to. In my area we have a person that has a plate with "ARAFAT" on it. Do I like that no I don't. But it is that person's name so they get to have it.
3.) Are license plates not "a public forum, for every initiative" already?Sure looks that way to me. I mean have you seen the new vanity plates from Indiana? Heck I have a hard time telling that they are license plates with all the doodling on them.
1.) Can a state prohibit what is said on license plates?
I'm not sure about "prohibit", but they would be within their rights to dictate the format - for example, XXX999XXX where "X"= letter and "9" = number.
That would stop some of the more, er, verbose vanity messages.
Also, it seems too obvious to mention, but free speech implies being able to say the same thing as someone else. If someone else in Utah wants to say "GAYSROK" on their licence plate, the Utah state licensing authority would be prefectly entitled to say no, on the grounds that it's already being used by someone else. They are primarily there to be a unique identifier, after all.
Nobody would sensibly oppose this on First Amendment grounds, would they? If they did, what would be to stop every single car driver from having "USAOK" as their licence plate if they wanted?
2.) Is trying to limit what is said on license plates a violation of the First Amendment?
If the state government uses a format that permits free use of any combination of letters and numbers at the choice of the licence holder, then no, I don't think they can place limits beyond insistence on a unique plate. If they're too dumb to think of a system that prevents abusive messages in licence plates, they don't deserve re-election, never mid getting their own way.
3.) Are license plates not "a public forum, for every initiative" already?
No. As I said, they have to be unique, or else there is no point to them at all. Free speech must allow two people to say the same thing, and since licence plates cannot do that, either the system needs to be scrapped anyway (which has its own consequences) or it is not a public forum for every initiative. My hunch is toward the latter position.
I'm not sure about "prohibit", but they would be within their rights to dictate the format - for example, XXX999XXX where "X"= letter and "9" = number.
That would stop some of the more, er, verbose vanity messages.
Also, it seems too obvious to mention, but free speech implies being able to say the same thing as someone else. If someone else in Utah wants to say "GAYSROK" on their licence plate, the Utah state licensing authority would be prefectly entitled to say no, on the grounds that it's already being used by someone else. They are primarily there to be a unique identifier, after all.
Nobody would sensibly oppose this on First Amendment grounds, would they? If they did, what would be to stop every single car driver from having "USAOK" as their licence plate if they wanted?
2.) Is trying to limit what is said on license plates a violation of the First Amendment?
If the state government uses a format that permits free use of any combination of letters and numbers at the choice of the licence holder, then no, I don't think they can place limits beyond insistence on a unique plate. If they're too dumb to think of a system that prevents abusive messages in licence plates, they don't deserve re-election, never mid getting their own way.
3.) Are license plates not "a public forum, for every initiative" already?
No. As I said, they have to be unique, or else there is no point to them at all. Free speech must allow two people to say the same thing, and since licence plates cannot do that, either the system needs to be scrapped anyway (which has its own consequences) or it is not a public forum for every initiative. My hunch is toward the latter position.
Interesting question. Just as an example of typical state regulations, here's what the state of Iowa says:
Link
That's a lot of restrictions, and some of them are wide open to interpretation. "Contrary to public policy" -- what does that mean, exactly? "Considered to be offensive" -- that's pretty broad.
The consensus seems to be that the state can limit what appears on license plates in any way they want. It would be nice to make them as open to public expression as possible, but there appears to be no obligation for them to do so.
So:
1. Yep.
2. Nope. (Or, it's at least a "permitted" restriction of the First Amendment.)
3. Not really.
(On a related issue, what about those license plates that say "Choose Life" -- there are not any, as far as I know, that say "Keep Abortion Legal." The state should not offer official license plates with clearly stated positions on controversial political issues.)
Link
QUOTE
No punctuation marks are allowed.
No denoting a government agency (i.e., DOT ).
No display of characters which are sexual in connotation.
No characters suggesting profane, obscene or inflammatory words or phrases, or those contrary to public policy.
No characters or words defined in dictionaries as a term of vulgarity, contempt, prejudice, hostility, insult, or racial or ethnic degradation.
No characters considered to be offensive.
No characters that conflict with the regular license numbering system.
Any foreign word falling in any of these categories.
No duplicate combination of characters, such as:
0000AA thru 9999ZZ 0000A thru 9999Z A000 thru Z999
000AAA thru 999ZZZ 000AA thru 999ZZ Numbers only
A0000 thru Z9999 AA000 thru ZZ999
No denoting a government agency (i.e., DOT ).
No display of characters which are sexual in connotation.
No characters suggesting profane, obscene or inflammatory words or phrases, or those contrary to public policy.
No characters or words defined in dictionaries as a term of vulgarity, contempt, prejudice, hostility, insult, or racial or ethnic degradation.
No characters considered to be offensive.
No characters that conflict with the regular license numbering system.
Any foreign word falling in any of these categories.
No duplicate combination of characters, such as:
0000AA thru 9999ZZ 0000A thru 9999Z A000 thru Z999
000AAA thru 999ZZZ 000AA thru 999ZZ Numbers only
A0000 thru Z9999 AA000 thru ZZ999
That's a lot of restrictions, and some of them are wide open to interpretation. "Contrary to public policy" -- what does that mean, exactly? "Considered to be offensive" -- that's pretty broad.
The consensus seems to be that the state can limit what appears on license plates in any way they want. It would be nice to make them as open to public expression as possible, but there appears to be no obligation for them to do so.
So:
1. Yep.
2. Nope. (Or, it's at least a "permitted" restriction of the First Amendment.)
3. Not really.
(On a related issue, what about those license plates that say "Choose Life" -- there are not any, as far as I know, that say "Keep Abortion Legal." The state should not offer official license plates with clearly stated positions on controversial political issues.)
Interesting and fun question. Personally, I enjoy trying to decipher some of the vanity plates I see - squeezing "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their parties, (or whatever message you want to convey) " into eight (or whatever) characters can be quite a challenge.
I think the state's right to abridge the speech displayed on vanity plates is properly restricted to ensuring the uniqueness of each plate issued and avoiding profanity. (For this latter, I cannot think of a better approach than simply publishing a list of prohibited words - I don't want some clerk at the DMV making judgments on such things.
Is it a First Amendment violation to abridge what's said on a license plate? Keeping license plates unique, as an another poster astutely pointed out, is a public policy goal that overrides individual free speech concerns. Keeping profanity off license plates, I think, also isn't a problem because of the public nature of the venue. My right to use potty language in a book that people pay for is pretty much unquestioned; to force others to view such language is something else entirely.
I think the state's right to abridge the speech displayed on vanity plates is properly restricted to ensuring the uniqueness of each plate issued and avoiding profanity. (For this latter, I cannot think of a better approach than simply publishing a list of prohibited words - I don't want some clerk at the DMV making judgments on such things.
Is it a First Amendment violation to abridge what's said on a license plate? Keeping license plates unique, as an another poster astutely pointed out, is a public policy goal that overrides individual free speech concerns. Keeping profanity off license plates, I think, also isn't a problem because of the public nature of the venue. My right to use potty language in a book that people pay for is pretty much unquestioned; to force others to view such language is something else entirely.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.