Woman sues NJ over "8thiest" license plate refusal

[dismal]

Censoring vanity plates is fraught with difficulties though.

Why? You just appoint some bureaucrat to do decide what is "tasteful and decent" and they do it.

My guess is the state would assert it's their license plate, not yours and you have no particular right to express yourself freely on it.

That is the argument they should make but I'm not sure it is a winning argument before a court pertaining to vanity plates.

See Mary Lewis v. Wilson, 253 F.3d 1077, 8th circuit court of appeals; Perry v. McDonald, 280 F.3d 159, 2nd circuit court of appeals; and

There is a precedent where courts found states must apply the rules equally to religious and non-religious statements of belief. In that case the license plate in question was a Christian message that was barred however so probably not popular here.

I'm on my phone so I didn't look at your cite.

 

[doubtingt]

Censoring vanity plates is fraught with difficulties though.

Why? You just appoint some bureaucrat to do decide what is "tasteful and decent" and they do it.

My guess is the state would assert it's their license plate, not yours and you have no particular right to express yourself freely on it.

That is the argument they should make but I'm not sure it is a winning argument before a court pertaining to vanity plates.

See Mary Lewis v. Wilson, 253 F.3d 1077, 8th circuit court of appeals; Perry v. McDonald, 280 F.3d 159, 2nd circuit court of appeals; and

It is a failing argument because this isn't really about freedom of expression, but about state-sponsored religion and state endorsement of one religious view over another. They approved Baptist but refused atheist. Had they refused both, then it would only be about free expression and they could argue the State owns the plate, so free expression doesn't apply. But allowing one religion and refusing another is more about the state discriminating based upon religion.

 

[dismal]

IRRC the decision I refer to was about equal protection. The state can censor but it must censor with rules that apply equally. That would also apply here of course.

 

[James Madison]

Censoring vanity plates is fraught with difficulties though.

Why? You just appoint some bureaucrat to do decide what is "tasteful and decent" and they do it.

My guess is the state would assert it's their license plate, not yours and you have no particular right to express yourself freely on it.

That is the argument they should make but I'm not sure it is a winning argument before a court pertaining to vanity plates.

See Mary Lewis v. Wilson, 253 F.3d 1077, 8th circuit court of appeals; Perry v. McDonald, 280 F.3d 159, 2nd circuit court of appeals; and

It is a failing argument because this isn't really about freedom of expression, but about state-sponsored religion and state endorsement of one religious view over another. They approved Baptist but refused atheist. Had they refused both, then it would only be about free expression and they could argue the State owns the plate, so free expression doesn't apply. But allowing one religion and refusing another is more about the state discriminating based upon religion.

No it is a winning argument. The free speech clause prohibits censorship on the basis of viewpoint. This is a classic example of viewpoint censorship and hence a violation of the free speech clause.

There may also be an establishment clause violation as well. Both cases have merit but I think the free speech violation is more potent.

 

[doubtingt]

Censoring vanity plates is fraught with difficulties though.

Why? You just appoint some bureaucrat to do decide what is "tasteful and decent" and they do it.

My guess is the state would assert it's their license plate, not yours and you have no particular right to express yourself freely on it.

That is the argument they should make but I'm not sure it is a winning argument before a court pertaining to vanity plates.

See Mary Lewis v. Wilson, 253 F.3d 1077, 8th circuit court of appeals; Perry v. McDonald, 280 F.3d 159, 2nd circuit court of appeals; and

It is a failing argument because this isn't really about freedom of expression, but about state-sponsored religion and state endorsement of one religious view over another. They approved Baptist but refused atheist. Had they refused both, then it would only be about free expression and they could argue the State owns the plate, so free expression doesn't apply. But allowing one religion and refusing another is more about the state discriminating based upon religion.

No it is a winning argument. The free speech clause prohibits censorship on the basis of viewpoint. This is a classic example of viewpoint censorship and hence a violation of the free speech clause.

There may also be an establishment clause violation as well. Both cases have merit but I think the free speech violation is more potent.

I meant that the hypothetical State argument that the plate is theirs, thus free speech doesn't apply is a failing argument. You're right that it fails on free speech grounds for the same reason that they are discriminating based on content, which both violates free speech and has the effect of religious discrimination. You're also right that a more general free speech argument has a better chance but I don't think that is because the argument has more merits, just that the courts have been unjustifiably inconsistent about allowing favoritism of some religious views over others (which all religious exemptions to secular laws inherently entail and yet the court allows such exemptions).

 

[bilby]

I can't afford vanity plates; however as changing your name by deed poll is much cheaper, I have decided to change my name to 731RBK.

 

[Phineas Flapdoodle]

I didn't say this was a good thing.

But strangely if you are always enthusiastically empowering mind-numbed bureaucrats to make decisions for everyone you get more decisions from mind-numbed bureaucrats that you have to live with.

Well, if that's what the bureaucrats tell us to like, it's our duty as productive citizens to support their decisions.

I certainly hope you're being sarcastic

 

[Underseer]

I didn't say this was a good thing.

But strangely if you are always enthusiastically empowering mind-numbed bureaucrats to make decisions for everyone you get more decisions from mind-numbed bureaucrats that you have to live with.

Well, if that's what the bureaucrats tell us to like, it's our duty as productive citizens to support their decisions.

I certainly hope you're being sarcastic

If you would even ask that, you don't know him very well.

 

[Earl IV]

Court just ruled Indiana must reinstate their custom plate program over freedom of speech issues.


Sent from SQUIRREL

 

[Underseer]

Court just ruled Indiana must reinstate their custom plate program over freedom of speech issues.


Sent from SQUIRREL

More details, please? Maybe a link?

 

[Earl IV]

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/05/08/judge-rules-indiana-bmv-ink-license-plate-case/8840585/

What's the difference between the words HATER and HATERS?

Nothing other than the letter "s" — unless you ask the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

The BMV denied a personalized license plate request for "HATER" but approved one that said "HATERS."

It also denied "SXY" but approved "BIGGSXY." "FOX LIES" was rejected, but "FOX NEWS" was given a thumbs-up. "CNCR SUX" was a no-no, but "WNTR SUX" was A-OK.

Such arbitrary, and unexplainable, action in approving personalized license plate requests was deemed unconstitutional Wednesday by Marion Superior Court Judge James Osborn. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed last year by Greenfield police officer Rodney Vawter, who was denied when he requested to renew a license plate that said "0INK."

...

Osborn's ruling came down in favor of Vawter and other Hoosier motorists who were denied what the BMV deemed to be "objectionable" or "derogatory" messages on personal plates. The judge said some of the standards the BMV used to assess the appropriateness of personalized license plates were so vague that they violated the First Amendment. He also ruled that the policy had not been properly reviewed and adopted according to state law.

"The First Amendment prevents arbitrary decision making when it comes to expression," said Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which represented Vawter and other Hoosiers in the class-action lawsuit. "The court properly recognized that the BMV does not have in place adequate, lawful and constitutional standards to assess personalized license plates."

 

[Underseer]

Thanks for the info.

Sane judge in a red state. How often does that happen?

 

[Earl IV]

I keep picturing some old, grumpy Mennonite who works in the BMV 2 days a week being the source of the "arbitrary and unexplainable" denials.

 

[DBT]

I'd imagine that in some US states having a number plate promoting atheism may get your car vandalized.

 

[bilby]

I'd imagine that in some US states having a number plate promoting atheism may get your car vandalized.

I dunno; I saw a ute the other day with a NSW Blues vanity plate; if that survives in Logan City, then I reckon an atheist in the US Bible Belt should be golden.

 

[DBT]

I'd imagine that in some US states having a number plate promoting atheism may get your car vandalized.

I dunno; I saw a ute the other day with a NSW Blues vanity plate; if that survives in Logan City, then I reckon an atheist in the US Bible Belt should be golden.

Logan City, heheh, good point, I could be wrong, but I tend to think that the US Bible Belt Brand of Faith is a special kind of lunacy.