I read about a man who was ticketed for taping over the state slogan on his car license plate. He claimed infringement of free speech and won (US Supreme Court).
So my question is how!? It seems to me there was no issue about his speech...the slogan is not his speech but the state's. He can no more choose to cover up the slogan than to drive without a plate or license. Didn't he implicitly agree to adhere the plate to his car, as is, by applying for a license in the first place?
2006-08-28 12:23:38 · 9 answers · asked by flignar 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
As long as the state name and letters/numbers are visible, along with the validation stickers, what's the problem?
2006-08-28 14:59:25 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In support of the first answer:
Some years ago, Kentucky issued license plates that featured Churchill Downs, the site of the Kentucky Derby. People objected that it was an endorsement of gambling. It forced the state to issue a sticker to cover the part of the plate that showed Churchill Downs.
Also, have you seen the current Washington DC plates with the slogan "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" along the bottom? That is sometimes covered up as well.
2006-08-28 20:48:57 · answer #2 · answered by F. Frederick Skitty 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, the courts say he didn't. As long as the identifying marks were still clearly visible (i.e. license plate number, registration and expiration stickers, and state name), then I don't see anything wrong with covering over the slogan. Most license plate holders would obscure that anyway with the name of a car dealership.
2006-08-28 19:29:17 · answer #3 · answered by Beardog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was in New Hampshire, based onthe motto: "Live free or die."
The plaintiff successfully argued that requiring him to display that motto was in effect forcing him to endorse the message of the state, which violated his protection against state-compelled speech.
The court also determined that the there was no compelling need for the state to require the motto portion to be displayed, since the rest of the plate was still visible, and the purpose of the plate was not served by the motto.
New Hampshire responded by creating a new line of generic plates, without the motto, so that people had a choice whether to have the motto on their plate or not.
2006-08-28 19:26:16 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
A person HAS to have a license plate, that person does NOT have to agree with everything the gov't may say on that license plate..
Of course, that's a rare instance, but, I sometimes feel that we need to speak up more about such things..
2006-08-28 19:29:32 · answer #5 · answered by chuckufarley2a 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it says something that he doesn't believe in, or doesn't like, then he has a right to cover it up. The plate's numbers are all that really matter, and I don't think anything else should be on there, unless wanted. Kind of like "In God We Trust" on coins... but not all Americans believe in God.
2006-08-28 19:29:56 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Gray 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Obviously the Supreme Court didn't see it that way.
Or that argument was never raised.
2006-08-28 19:30:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was Missouri - the show me state. The plantiff argued that they didn't want to be a stripper and show it to everyone.
2006-08-31 23:10:29 · answer #8 · answered by sd;jsdfj; 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can´t beat Coragryph´s answer
Short, to the point and unbiased
to boot. Kudos to him!
2006-08-28 19:46:53 · answer #9 · answered by vim 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋