The liberals never quit trying to censor free speech.
THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY BLOG
An acquaintance of mine passed along an interesting story: In August 2002, the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles refused to give Hector Sanchez the personalized license plate that he chose -- "PRO NRA." The plate, they said, fell into the category of "Obscene, Lewd, Lascivious, and Derogatory to a particular ethnic group or patently offensive." (I have a fax of their letter in front of me.)
Fortunately, attorney Dan Zavadil (supported by the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund ) wrote the New York DMV a letter pointing out that none of these categories applied, and persuaded the DMV to change its position..
The constitutional question here, by the way -- is the content of a personalized license plate a nonpublic forum, where the government may not discriminate based on viewpoint, or is it the government's own speech, over which the government has nearly unlimited authority? -- is nontrivial. All the cases that I've found have concluded that the government may not refuse a proposed license plate based on viewpoint, though it may discriminate based on content if it does so in a viewpoint-neutral way. I think this is probably right, though the "government speech" position is a defensible one, too. (Note, incidentally, that the question of customized license plate designs, which some states allow for groups that promise to deliver at least some number of buyers, is potentially different.)
But in any event, even if the DMV had the constitutional power to reject a "PRO NRA" plate, its decision to treat this message as "Patently offensive" would still be intolerant, and worth condemning.
volokh.com |
