In an interview, Hart said he became an atheist at the age of 15. He claims the license plate is simply a reflection of his view that religious beliefs are subject to individual interpretations. Hart also suggests that there is a difference between using a curse word to describe God and saying, “I am God.” ACLU-KY Legal Director William Sharp echoed this sentiment, stating “Under the First Amendment, government officials do not have the authority to censor messages simply because they dislike them…Just as others may select religious messages, Ben Hart, an atheist, has a right to comment on religion.”
In order to decipher my thoughts on the case, I turned to another case involving messages displayed on license plates- Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc. In a 5-4 decision, this case held that Texas’ specialty license plates were a form of government speech and therefore not a forum open to private speech. Because the messages on the plates are the government’s speech, the majority argued, choosing what content is allowed on the plates is not viewpoint discrimination because the expression is a product of the democratic election process. In Judge Alito’s dissent however, he made an argument for license plates being categorized as private speech rather than that of the government. Alito stated, “You might see plates bearing the name of a high school, a fraternity or sorority, the Masons, the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of the American Revolution, a realty company, a favorite soft drink, a favorite burger restaurant, and a favorite NASCAR driver. As you sat there watching these plates speed by, would you really think that the sentiments reflected in these specialty plates are the views of the State of Texas and not those of the owners of the cars?”
The precedent established in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc. would likely lead me to favor Kentucky Motor Vehicle Licensing agency’s side over that of Hart. However, I find myself siding with the logic used in Alito’s dissent previously mentioned, and therefore I believe Hart should have the right to display a license plate that states “IM GOD.” All license plates obviously contain some forms of government speech (as they list the state name and vehicle identification), but the very fact that license plates can be customized suggests a degree of private speech on every plate. I do not think one would see Hart’s license plate and perceive it as a message the government endorses, especially given the vast amount of specialty license plates that exist now. Given that I believe the license plate’s message is clearly private speech, the government may not discriminate in favor of one viewpoint over the other as established in Rosenberger. Kentucky already has an option for citizens to buy license plate templates that say, “In God We Trust,” and disallowing Hart to express his viewpoint on religion while allowing another religious message to prevail would clearly be viewpoint discrimination. For these reasons, I believe Hart is protected under the First Amendment to display this message on his vanity license plate.
In order to decipher my thoughts on the case, I turned to another case involving messages displayed on license plates- Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc. In a 5-4 decision, this case held that Texas’ specialty license plates were a form of government speech and therefore not a forum open to private speech. Because the messages on the plates are the government’s speech, the majority argued, choosing what content is allowed on the plates is not viewpoint discrimination because the expression is a product of the democratic election process. In Judge Alito’s dissent however, he made an argument for license plates being categorized as private speech rather than that of the government. Alito stated, “You might see plates bearing the name of a high school, a fraternity or sorority, the Masons, the Knights of Columbus, the Daughters of the American Revolution, a realty company, a favorite soft drink, a favorite burger restaurant, and a favorite NASCAR driver. As you sat there watching these plates speed by, would you really think that the sentiments reflected in these specialty plates are the views of the State of Texas and not those of the owners of the cars?”
The precedent established in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc. would likely lead me to favor Kentucky Motor Vehicle Licensing agency’s side over that of Hart. However, I find myself siding with the logic used in Alito’s dissent previously mentioned, and therefore I believe Hart should have the right to display a license plate that states “IM GOD.” All license plates obviously contain some forms of government speech (as they list the state name and vehicle identification), but the very fact that license plates can be customized suggests a degree of private speech on every plate. I do not think one would see Hart’s license plate and perceive it as a message the government endorses, especially given the vast amount of specialty license plates that exist now. Given that I believe the license plate’s message is clearly private speech, the government may not discriminate in favor of one viewpoint over the other as established in Rosenberger. Kentucky already has an option for citizens to buy license plate templates that say, “In God We Trust,” and disallowing Hart to express his viewpoint on religion while allowing another religious message to prevail would clearly be viewpoint discrimination. For these reasons, I believe Hart is protected under the First Amendment to display this message on his vanity license plate.
5 comments:
I agree. Justice Alito's dissenting opinion sounds very spot on to me. Given that an individual has to pay extra to word a vanity license plate, I think it is pretty obvious that the words on the license plate are not those of the state government that issued the plate. Further, if the agency denies license plates that are "vulgar or obscene," and they determined that this message fit that mold, that could constitute a hostility toward religion. While that is a stretch, the point is that most to all would agree that there is nothing vulgar or obscene about that message and the only reason to deny it would be for religious purposes, which is strictly forbidden, at least for a government official.
I agree with both of you and would like to add that the government is not being neutral here. Clearly this man is sincere in his atheist belief and wants to express something he believes morally, that religion should be left to individual interpretations. This belief, although some may not claim is a religious view, should be thought of similarly Precedent shows in United States v. Seeger that fundamental/ moral concepts that do not revolve around a supreme being should be regarded by the court in a similar light. If this man wants to express a fundamental and atheist viewpoint that all religions are interpreted then he should be able to. If the court rules against this then they would be promoting theist speech over non-theist speech.
The government's argument that the "IM GOD" license plate is vulgar is not consistent with the allowance of other religious messages on license plates. The government should not attempt to deny religious free-exercise by limiting free speech on license plates since it allows secular speech such as support for fraternity, sorority, sports teams, etc. to be put onto a license plate. In my opinion, a reasonable person understands license plates to be the car owner’s speech in the same way that a bumper sticker is perceived, not the beliefs endorsed by the state.
I strongly disagree with the rejection of the license plate. Especially due to the reasoning being "vulgarity." The State's argument is that license plates represent the views and official opinions of the government. If that was truly the case, establishment issues would also have to be raised for all other types of religious messages on license plates. That would include crosses, the words "in god we trust," or in fact, any customized license plate that allude to one specific faith. Those types of messages will likely never be rejected for license plates, nor should they be. Because other religious speech is allowed, the rejection cannot be considered a restriction on content, and instead a restriction on the specific viewpoint of the plaintiff. As discussed in Rosenberger vs. UVA, content discrimination can be constitutional but viewpoint discrimination never is.
I agree with Jill's opinion on this matter. I, at least personally, would never look at a license plate and correlate its message to the beliefs of the government. If the vehicle, itself, was a government sponsored vehicle, the situation would most likely differ. However, the messge of a license plate is not an ad; it is an outlet for individual expression. People have to pay for a customized license plate. Thus, the government is basically claiming the words of an individual, the words of the state. This becomes a slippery slope for every citizens' right to free speech.
Post a Comment