What next? Sons of Wehrmacht veterans requesting their LP?

[Big RR]

I agree.

[MajGenl.Meade]

All states (AFAIK) allow groups to REQUEST consideration for special license plate issues. They also reserve the right not to ACCEPT any and all applications.

The individual (and any group) must not be allowed to FORCE the state to publish what is unacceptable in terms of public display. Government speech is simply whatever the Government makes, manufactures or produces. Private speech is what you or I or some private group we belong to makes, manufactures or produces.

We can force the government to say publically what it says privately (i.e. open government, discovery, freedom of info act and so on). But we cannot force the government to say what we want to say. This is quite obvious, is it not?

[Big RR]

Well Meade, here is where you and I differ; I find it outrageous that the state is taking it upon itself to choose which messages are acceptable and which are not, and would not want to give the state that power to regulate the content of what can be said in public. Giving up vanity plates, and the revenue therefrom, is a small sacrifice to keep the government out of that.

[Sue U]

This is quite obvious, is it not?

No, none of it is "quite obvious," which is why the case was taken up by the Supreme Court, which does not busy itself with obvious or trivial matters. If you take a few minutes to read the 5th Circuit's majority opinion and dissent in the case, which I linked, you can see how murky the subject really is.

Major First Amendment policy problems predictably arise when government allows private actors to appropriate the tools of the State to express their messages, and when government discriminates among those messages based on their viewpoint or content.

[Scooter]

I didn't read the decision - do it or any of the precedents apply to vanity plates, or is it just affinity plates that are deemed private speech? Because I can see a distinction that makes the former government speech, in that the alphanumeric combination appearing on the plate serves the primary purpose of identifying the vehicle for official purposes, and therefore it would be entirely reasonable to limit the sorts of messages they might convey. I don't think it is reasonable to require a DMV clerk to be forced to input "IH8JEWS" to record the registration of a vehicle, or to require a police officer to write "KILLFAGS" on a traffic ticket, or to obligate a citizen to report that a vehicle fleeing the scene of a crime bore the licence plate "FUN--GG-R" , or for any government to have to populate a vehicle registration database with such obscenities.

The affinity plate thing I completely get - that is all about the person displaying it and cannot be seen as having association with government. But the plate number - different story in my book.

[Econoline]

I find it outrageous that the state is taking it upon itself to choose which messages are acceptable and which are not, and would not want to give the state that power to regulate the content of what can be said in public.

That might be true if on the license plate were the only place a message could be displayed on a motor vehicle--or even the most common place for messages to be displayed. "Bumper" stickers (not just for bumpers; you can stick them just about anywhere on a vehicle except for maybe the windshield) expressing any conceivable message (political or otherwise) are perfectly legal and widely available, and if you can't find one ready-made there are plenty of places that will custom-produce them for you, or you can buy blank stickers and make your own. To reserve a tiny 6 X 12 inch area (actually much less than that, since that space also has to include the registration number and the name of the state) where the state must approve of the content is not asking for much.

[Big RR]

It is still allowing a state to regulate speech based on content; admittedly it is a regulation of a small subset of public expression. but it is still allowing the state to decide what messages deserve to be displayed and what do not based on nothing more than the content of the message--something I think the state has no business doing.

[Gob]

You want to get rid of that "Freedom of speech is paramount" thing, it causes no end of problems for you.

[Big RR]

Somehow I'd bet getting rid of it would cause even more.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It is still allowing a state to regulate speech based on content; admittedly it is a regulation of a small subset of public expression. but it is still allowing the state to decide what messages deserve to be displayed and what do not based on nothing more than the content of the message--something I think the state has no business doing.

So you are all for forcing the state to publish your message (by making a special license plate design available for public purchase). Don't forget, the state must make those plates available to anyone who wants one.

[Sue U]

I didn't read the decision - do it or any of the precedents apply to vanity plates, or is it just affinity plates that are deemed private speech? Because I can see a distinction that makes the former government speech, in that the alphanumeric combination appearing on the plate serves the primary purpose of identifying the vehicle for official purposes, and therefore it would be entirely reasonable to limit the sorts of messages they might convey.

The court refers to them all as "specialty license plates," although does note distinctions on how they are created (e.g., by legislative act or by citizen request) that feature in the analysis.

Our conclusion that specialty license plates are private speech is consistent with the majority of
other circuits that have considered the issue. See Roach, 560 F.3d at 867 (specialty plates are
private speech); Arizona Life Coal. v. Stanton, 515 F.3d 956, 968 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Choose Life”
plate with logo depicting the faces of two young children was private speech); White, 547
F.3d at 863 (“Messages on specialty license plates cannot be characterized as the government’s
speech”); Sons of Confederate Veterans, 288 F.3d at 621 (“SCV’s special plates constitute private
speech.”).[sup]3[/sup] Although only Roach was decided after Summum, the Eighth Circuit did not think that
Summum mandated that the specialty license plates were government speech. 650 F.3d at 868 n.3. And
for the reasons we explained above, we agree.

The Board, though, urges us to follow the Sixth Circuit’s decision in
ACLU of Tennessee v. Bredesen, 441 F.3d 370 (6th Cir. 2006), where the Sixth Circuit held that a
specialty license plate was government speech. The Board claims Bredesen’s “holding extends to all
specialty plates approved by state officials” and can serve as a model for this Court. We
disagree. The Sixth Circuit’s conclusion that specialty license plates are government speech makes
it the sole outlier among our sister circuits. And the Sixth Circuit reached that holding based on
facts different from those in the instant case: the Tennessee legislature itself had passed an act
specifically authorizing, creating, and
issuing a “Choose Life” specialty license plate. Bredesen, 441 F.3d at 372, 376. We think this
distinction alone is sufficient to warrant a different outcome here. But even if it were not, we
would decline to follow Bredesen because the Sixth Circuit’s analysis cannot be reconciled with
Supreme Court precedent, specifically Wooley. See id. at 386 (Martin, J., dissenting) (explaining
that Wooley found the message on the license plate was private, even though the government had
“crafted” and “had ultimate control over” the message); see also White, 547 F.3d at 863
(characterizing the Sixth Circuit’s conclusion in Bredesen as “flawed” in part because of the
difficulty in squaring the decision with Wooley).

As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, “[t]here may be situations in
which it is difficult to tell whether a government entity is speaking on its own behalf or is
providing a forum for private speech.” Summum, 555 U.S. at 470. But considering the situation here,
we are confident that a reasonable observer would know that a specialty license plate is the speech
of the individual driving the car. Thus, we hold that specialty license plates are private speech.

__________________________________________________
3. In Byrne v. Rutledge, 623 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010), the Second Circuit treated Vermont vanity
plates as private speech. 623 F.3d at 53–54. The state did not argue that the vanity license
plates were government speech before the district court, and though the state raised that argument
on appeal, the Second Circuit declined to consider the issue. Byrne, 623 F.3d at 53 n.7
(explaining that it is “a well-established general rule that an appellate court will not consider
an issue raised for the first time on appeal”). Because Byrne did not analyze whether the vanity
license plates were government or private speech, we do not include it here.

[Scooter]

Thanks.

[Sue U]

So you are all for forcing the state to publish your message (by making a special license plate design available for public purchase). Don't forget, the state must make those plates available to anyone who wants one.

Yes, exactly, and that is what the law requires where the state has chosen to make such plates available to anyone who wants one.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, not to anyone who WANTS one. Not at all. There is a process to submit suggestions. Those suggestions are subject to review and approval. There cannot be carte blanche to force the state to speak MY words/ideas. I don't want to be part of any state that is so supine as to spend (my) tax dollars on producing hate messages. It doesn't matter that the people pay extra for the plate.

Those people are free to stick rebel flags and whatever crap they like on their cars. There is no "freedom" for people to force the state to do so.

[Big RR]

It depends, if you permit some political messages, you must permit all; the state should not be deciding what messages are acceptable and what are not.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It depends, if you permit some political messages, you must permit all; the state should not be deciding what messages are acceptable and what are not.

What "political message" are you referring to? I've yet to see a state issued plate that (as its background) contains any such thing. Do you equate "Vietnam Vet" with a political message? Or any of the various sports team logo plates as political?

How does all this lawyerly outrage match up to consistent lawyerly demands that the Stars 'n Bars be REMOVED from government sanctioned displays and that the 10 commandments (oh all right, just a couple of them really) must be removed? Sure and if the state published license plates saying "Kill Darkies", the same moaners would be up in arms about that.

The state in this case is not abridging anybody's right to freedom of speech. The state is correctly performing its function of not ENDORSING offensive displays - and refusing to publish the same. The people who want to put slogans and flags on their own vehicles are perfectly free to do so.

I ignore legal convolutions designed to confound sense and reality and get everyone sitting with a fence post up their backsides. No state should be forced to publish MY MESSAGE just because I think it should do so. I can publish it myself.

rubato's point remains. To argue this on freedom of speech is to open Pandora's box to all manner of evil.

[Econoline]

When you're right, you're right, General. I agree completely.

[Guinevere]

The court ruled on this yesterday, and though I have not had a chance to read the full opinion, the crux of the decision Is that they ruled the specialty license plates were governmental speech and Texas cannot be forced to promote any particular message on those plates. Interestingly, Justice Thomas sided with the liberals on this one to create the majority.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's nice - the Supremes agree with me and vice versa. Among the millions of things that puzzle me is this:

It was liberals who arrived at this decision (+ Thomas)? Have I left the side of the angels?

Surely, any good conservative should agree that government cannot be forced to promote particular messages. I would have thought that a more liberal approach would be to require government to do so.

Evidently not

[rubato]

"... I would have thought that a more liberal approach would be to require government to do so.

... " t

Based on what?


The history of liberals is opposite.


yrs,
rubato