Does this ruling make anything clearer? Not to me:
California can't enforce a ban vanity license plates it considers “offensive to good taste and decency” because that violates freedom of speech, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar ruled in a case filed in March against Department of Motor Vehicles Director Steve Gordon on behalf of five Californians who were denied permission to put their messages on personalized license plates...
However, Tigar said the DMV probably could be permitted to deny plates that are, for instance, obscene, profane or contain hate speech because they fall outside of First Amendment protections.
Probably? Probably? How thick is the dividing line between "offensive to good taste and decency" and "obscene, profane"? How big is that gray area?
What's allowed, and what's not?
3 comments:
I would be very curious to know what was questioned. I suspect, in some areas, my pro-life-adoption plate would fall into the offensive category.
The linked article has some examples.
Obscenity, profanity, and hate speech are indeed protected by the First Amendment. That doesn't mean the DMV has to allow them, I don't think. A license plate is not exactly a public forum, it's a license plate that allows government to identify a car. Just because they let you put some things on your car's ID tag doesn't mean they have to let you put anything on there.
Post a Comment