Study of censored licence plates

Return to chronology 10 Oct 2001

2001, December 21: The words Road Rage

In Columbus, Ohio. The state engaged in obscurantism and political-correctness censorship by refusing to issue a set of vanity plates with those words on them: RDRAGE. The reason stated for the refusals by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles? "Road rage kills people."

Anthony Zucco, of Niles, asked for these vanity plates two years running and his application was refused both times. He wants this logo on the plates for his classic show car; which he has nicknamed Road Rage. The ACLU's Ohio chapter is handling the resulting case. Raymond Vasvari, the legal director for that chapter, says the regulations being invoked by the state are unconstitutionally broad, overvague, and without standards. Mr. Vasvari is quoted as saying, "The state needs to adopt a more objective, less subjective set of regulations." It was also reported that he expects other plaintiffs to be added to the suit. Some other vanity plate logos that have been arbitrarily disallowed are by Ohio are:

The following vanity plates from other states have been subjected to formal challenges in the way of written complaints to their various DMV's. Complaints for some of these can be seen at The Smoking Gun website.

[Although I suppose CNLNGS could refer to scuba diving and the use of "canned lungs". --MN]
(see an op/ed piece by Kenneth Paulson, 26 Aug 2001)

Return to chronology 21 Dec 2001

2002, March 14: Oregon vanity licence plate

By Michael Higgins, retired wine merchant. He appealed before the Oregon Supreme Courst a censorial decision by the State of Oregon which refused to issue plates reading:

Oregon does not allow any references to alcohol, tobacco or drugs, along with vulgar or sex-related words.
(see an op/ed piece by Kenneth Paulson, 26 Aug 2001)

Return to chronology 14 Mar 2002

2002, March 14: Florida vanity licence plate ATHEIST

By Steven Miles of Gainesville, Florida. The DMV ruled that he can keep this plate.

Although he had already had this licence plate for sixteen years, the Florida DMV recently received a letter signed by ten [or twelve; reports vary] petitioners who complained about it. The most recent challenge since his putting it up in 1986. A supervisor in the Bureau of Titles and Registrations in Tallahassee decided that the plate had to be taken off the road and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles wrote to Mr. Miles and advised him that they were yanking the plate because it was "obscene or objectionable"; right up there with epithets, expletives, and words describing certain body parts. That was in February.

Instead of returning the plate Mr. Miles contacted the ACLU. However, the supervisor's decision was overturned when news of that decision was published in the press.

[Florida DMV has a review process in place for vanity plates, and refuses to issue certain plates fairly routinely. The screening process reportedly involves consulting dictionaries for medical terminology and slang.

Kathryn Wexler, of the St. Petersburg Times, reported in an article on 14 March, that it is rare that a demand will be made that a plate be returned, but then alternately reported in an article on 15 March that 57 plates had, first, been recalled, then secondly, cancelled, in the last three years alone. Nineteen incidents a year, 1.6 a month, is hardly rare when, "A few complaints about license plates trickle in every month." However, the allusion to cancellations might relate to applications that were rejected rather than to recalls of already issued plates.

A few of those 57 vanity plates are:

I don't get either of these "*". If you can figure them out kindly drop me a line and clue me in. The best I can come up with for the first one is, "Gee, you ate 12." Like . . . fellated 12? And what a far stretch that reasoning is. Maybe he ate 12 donuts. Unless it's a weapon designation; I seem to semi-recall a jet-fighter mounted automatic cannon named along those lines.

For more about censored plates you can check out The Smoking Gun website and the report at Freedom Forum Online from 20 Mar 2002. --MN]

[Addendum (05 June 2002): I have since gotten an e-mail from christexan@XXXXX.com explaining that XEQ-SHNE stands for execution. He also offered the plausible explanation that GU812 stands for, Gee You Ate One Too, and is a reference to "Oh, you ate one too" (OU812).. the Van Halen album...". --MN]
(see an op/ed piece by Kenneth Paulson, 26 Aug 2001)

Return to chronology 14 Mar 2002

2002, March 20: Vermont Vanity Plate IRISH1

By Carol Ann Martin. She argued her case before the Vermont Supreme court. State of Vermont can reject a plate that "might be offensive or confusing to the general public." Specifically: "combinations of letters or numbers that refer in any language to a race, religion, color, deity, ethnic heritage, gender, sexual orientation, disability status or political affiliation."

[Oh, yeah! -- people are too stupid to figure out that her licence plate might not mean anything at all. Never mind that the overwhelming majority -- probably on the order of 99.999 percent -- of Vermonters who even see the plate will never try to figure out that it might mean anything derogatory. --MN]
(see an op/ed piece by Kenneth Paulson, 26 Aug 2001)
(see 19 Jan 2004)

Return to chronology 20 Mar 2002

2002, April 15: Vanity plate censorship in Missouri struck down

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case about whether or not states that allow vanity plates are also allowed to censor contentious or "offensive" messages. This ends an almost two decades long court battle in favour of Mary Lewis, who has been battling the State of Missouri for the right to a vanity plate that reads ARYAN-1 since 1983. She successfully sued and was issued the plate in 1990, but then the state changed the law two years later and revoked it. Missouri officials contend that some vanity tags can invoke road-rage and that they are a public-safety issue. The word aryan is considered inflammatory because Adolf Hitler used the word to describe his superiour race. However, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the "contrary to public policy" provision of their law went too far, and also pointed out that concerns over the reactions of others was not grounds for such censorship; citing the quote: The First Amendment knows no heckler's veto. Some states have other standards, but twenty five states have bans against "offensive" tags; those states are: (see an op/ed piece by Kenneth Paulson, 26 Aug 2001)

Return to chronology 15 Apr 2002

2002, June 29: 2 DAGOS

By Phil and Fran Lascola. They received a letter from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles recinding this personalized plate issued one and a half years ago. The reason: someone complained of its racist connotation. The Lascolas, however, both of Italian descent, refuse to accept that decision. They are both proud of their Italian heritage, do not mind being referred to as dagos, and do not want to give up the plate. Robert Sanchez, the spokesman for the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is quoted as saying, "The department has the broad statutory authority to recall any license plate on which the alphanumeric combination is deemed to be either obscene and/or objectionable."

Other Florida plates that had been called into question but ultimately approved are:

[Mr. Sanchez maintains the the DMV review board attempts to decide each case in good faith by ordinary community standards. Somebody better slap the DMV up alongside the head and tell them that one person does not constitute a community. In fact, if it comes to that, the Lascolas have that person out numbered two to one in favour of keeping the plates. They do not stand alone, however. Plus, just who is this complaintant? Another person of Italian extraction, or just some hypersensitive, knee-jerk reactionary, PC, snivelling, white shit who doesn't know enough to mind his own business? --MN]
(see an op/ed piece by Kenneth Paulson, 26 Aug 2001)

Return to chronology 29 Jun 2002

2002, August 23: Vanity plates suspended in China

After only ten days of offering the service. It was reported that during the ten days allowing personalized plates, some 7,000 drivers in China had bought such plates. The reported reasons for the suspension are contradictory, however. In the same article, the suspension was attributed to some of the plates featuring potentially offensive words and to concerns over trademark infringements; a legitimate concern. Government officials in China did not explain the decision.

Some of the examples cited are:

Other plates apparently carried: CIA, FBI, and corporate names.

[I can see why the government of China wouldn't want some subversive dissident carrying a plate about the amalgamation of Hong Kong in 1997. Never mind that the driver might be commemorating that event in support of it. After all, he might have been against it. Some people certainly were, and we can't allow that kind of thinking in a system where Almighty Government know best. --MN]

Return to chronology 23 Aug 2002

2003, July 03: Oregon vanity licence plates

The Oregon Supreme Court unanimously upheld state Driver and Motor Vehicles Services regulations banning references to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, vulgarities, or sex-related words. The Court said a key element of the ruling is the "essential character: of licence plates. The court said a licence plate amounts to a "government-controlled device that carries a government-approved identification message that vehicle owners must display on their vehicle for regulatory purposes, unrelated to the suppression of speech." The court ruled that nothing in the words or history of free-speech provisions entitles anyone to compel the DMV to manufacture a registration plate with messages not approved by the agency. It also said that under federal court decisions a license plate is not a public forum and DMV rules are reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.

Oregon ACLU Executive Director David Fidanque said in a statement, "Of course, the decision is a disappointment to those of us who care about free speech. We believe it's always dangerous to allow government officials to decide whose speech and which messages are appropriate. The silver lining is that this decision is so narrow, we hope it won't apply to any other government restrictions on speech.

Return to chronology 03 Jul 2002

2004, March 22: Choose Life vanity plates

By South Carolina. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling that South Carolina's Choose Life plates violate the First Amendment by giving anti-abortion advocates a forum without reciprocating to pro-choice proponents. The court wrote in part, "By limiting access to a specialty license plate to those who agree with its pro-life position, the State has distorted the forum in favor of its own viewpoint. South Carolina has engaged in viewpoint discrimination by allowing only the Choose Life plate." This ruling upholds a federal judge's decision in December 2002, but is at odds with a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that decided Louisiana abortion-rights advocates had no standing to sue over that state's anti-abortion plate. South Carolina plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the Louisiana case in Dec 2003.

Return to chronology 22 Mar 2004

2004, July 24: GOTMILF vanity licence plates

By Michael Syravong. Snohomish County in Washington State cancelled this vanity licence plate after complaints by two women. MILF stands for Mothers I'd Like to Fuck; it has become very popular with internet pornography sites featuring mature women. Mr Syravong had told the Washington DMV it stood for "Manual Inline Lift Fluctuator". In his efforts to keep the plate he offered a few possible alternate meanings, including 'Got My Invitation Last Friday' and 'Got Married Into Lisa's Family'. The DMV didn't fall for it and the tags were cancelled after a review of several months.

[Get serious, dude, nobody's going to believe MILF stands for anything other than its sexual connotation. The question that arises from this case, as I see it, is: can acronyms be found to be as "obscene" as they ideas they stand for? --MN]

Return to chronology 24 Jul 2004

2004, September 24: Choose Life vanity plates

By Tennessee. U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell ruled that Tennessee's Choose Life license plate was unconstitutional, although he declined to rule on whether the state's entire specialty plate program was flawed. His ruling is based on the reasoning in similar cases in other states, and says that the state could not promote just one viewpoint in the abortion debate. He is quoted from the ruling: "The result in this case would be the same if the statute authorized a 'Pro-Choice' license plate instead of the 'Choose Life' license plate." The ACLU and Planned Parenthood had challenged the specialty plates in Nov 2003. Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life, said his group was not surprised by the decison and that the issue needed to go before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He is quoted, "I think that it's a great irony to claim to protect free speech by eliminating it. That's exactly what has occurred in this case."

[There's a very simple free speech friendly solution to this problem, fool: produce Pro-Choice plates as well. In the meantime, I think it is a great irony for censorial twits who would enslave the reproductive faculties of half the human race to snivel about free speech suppression. Because that is exactly what the state tried to do in this case, and there is a court ruling to back up that conclusion. --MN]

Return to chronology 24 Sep 2004

2005, January 19: Vanity plates free speech law suit

By Shawn Byrne. The Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles had rejected Mr. Byrne's application for a vanity license plate using a biblical passage. He had submitted his application on 20 Apr 2004, on which he was asked to list three choices; he wrote: "JOHN316," "JN316" and "JN36TN." The application also asked what each selection represented and in each case he wrote, "Bible passage." The DMV wrote to him that, "It has been deemed to be a combination that refers to deity and has been denied based on that reason." Mr. Byrne appealed the decision, but an administrative judge upheld the denial. This in light of the fact that the Vermont Supreme Court had ruled two years previously in the case of Carol Ann Martin that her application was acceptable.

On this day, an attorney for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, Joshua Carden, filed a law suit alleging a free speech violation. Mr. Carden is quoted, "The Constitution does not permit DMV officials to discriminate based upon the applicant's point of view. Religious speech is not inferior to secular speech. The department's actions are clearly unconstitutional."
(see 20 Mar 2002)

Return to chronology 19 Jan 2005

2005, January 24: Choose Life vanity plates

By South Carolina. On this day the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider South Carolina's anti-abortion license plates are unconstitutional; a question that could have resulted in the elimination of similar programs in a dozen states. A lower court had ruled that the plates, which bear the slogan Choose Life, violate the First Amendment because abortion-rights supporters were not given a similar forum to express their beliefs. The case is Rose v. Planned Parenthood of South Carolina. Planned Parenthood of South Carolina had argued in its filing that the program amounts to "viewpoint discrimination" by state officials since they allow expression of only one side of the abortion debate. South Carolina countered that the plates are "government speech", which entitles them to allow a particular viewpoint without an obligation to include dissenting views.

Return to chronology 24 Jan 2005

2005, April 13: Choose Life vanity plates

By Louisiana. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a U.S. District court ruling that outlawed not only the Choose Life plates but the entire system for approving and issuing car plates in the State of Louisiana; regardless of the message. The appeals court said the lawsuit involves a tax issue that belongs in state court. U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval ruled in 2003 that the state's system for issuing specialty plates violates the right to free speech because the legislature chooses who gets the tags and the money. Lawmakers easily approved the anti-abortion plate in 1999, but an attempt to create a "choose choice" tag failed in 2002, and a bid for a specialty plate for gay rights died during the 2003 session.

[I'm guessing that the court ruled the only way it could, but that that does not obviate the apparent discrimination by the Louisiana legislature. --MN]

Return to chronology 13 Apr 2005

2005, July 19: GAYSROK

By Elizabeth Solomon. Utah State Tax Commission Administrative Law Judge Jane Phan ruled against Utah, saying there was no good reason to prevent the Park City woman from having this vanity plate, which can be read: "Gays are OK" or "Gays rock", or another one saying, "GAYRYTS". The judge ruled in part, "The narrow issue before us is whether a reasonable person would believe the terms "Gays are OK" and "GAYRYTS" are, themselves, offensive to good taste and decency. It is the conclusion of the commission that a reasonable person would not." The state might appeal this ruling, however, so this case is not yet over.

Return to chronology 19 Jul 2005

2006, March 17: Choose Life Vanity plates

By State of Tennessee. A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that said the tag illegally promoted only one side of the abortion debate. Judge John M. Rogers wrote in the 2-1 ruling: "Although this exercise of government one-sidedness with respect to a very contentious political issue may be ill-advised, we are unable to conclude that the Tennessee statute contravenes the First Amendment." The state of Tennessee had not appealed the district court ruling that outlawed the plates, however, it was New Life Resources, which stands to benefit from funds raised by sales of the plates, that intervened and took the case to the 6th Circuit. Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. dissented, saying that the specialty-plate program is unconstitutional because it discriminates against one side in the abortion debate.

[Which opinion this editor agrees with, as the state is not also offering "Choose Choice" licence plates. In fact, such a plate was repudiated by the state legislature in 2002. Which constitutes an entaglement of church and state as far as I'm concerned, as well as a squelching of pro-abortion speech. See the source article for more background. --MN]

Return to chronology 17 Mar 2006

2006, June 12: Report on a challenge to XONSUX

By Annette Nelson-Wright. Some time in 1999 or 2000, Ms. Nelson-Wright decided to express her sorrow and disgust over the continuing Exxon Valdiz travesty by ordering XONSUX vanity plates through the Department of Motor Vehicles. The plates were issued by the State of Alaska, transferred successfully to California when she moved there, and then successfully transferred back to Alaska when she returned to that state. Sometime this year she and her husband received a letter from DMV. Someone had complained about the plate, and DMV decided it was inappropriate. Ms. Nelson-Wright is fighting on sheer principle, not just because the plates were approved by the DMV twice and had been in circulation for years before drawing a single complaint, but because to her, the phrase "XONSUX" is far less offensive than Exxon's actions in Alaska over the years:
"Tell me why that's offensive and I'll tell you how Exxon has harmed Alaska. I see pictures of the oil spill, and that's offensive to me.

Fishermen's lives have been ruined, and that's offensive to me. The ecosystem has been damaged, and that's offensive to me.

"And I'm being told my plate is offensive?"

Aside from which, Exxon has yet to pay the damages it was ordered to. Carl Springer, a registrar with DMV, said the state uses a computer program to sort acceptable vanity plates from unacceptable ones, but it's not foolproof. The word "SUX" should have doomed the plate, but somehow XONSUX beat the system.

[I certainly think the DMV should be held accountable for unilaterally making this decision without consulting with Ms. Nelson-Wright. Futhermore, the deparment should be made to answer the question: Who filed the complaint about offensiveness? A private citizen, or a corporation, and if a corporation, which one? --MN]

Return to chronology 12 Jun 2006

2006, June 25: Choose Life vanity plates

By several states. On this day the U.S. Supreme Court turned away an appeal by pro-abortion groups attempting to block states from issuing license plates with the message "Choose Life." Justices said they would not look at tag laws challenges in the states of Louisiana and Tennessee. Some dozen states allow drivers to pay extra for such specialty tags, but proposals to offer car owners an alternative "Choose Choice" plate failed in both state Legislatures. Abortion opponents contend they have a free-speech right to broadcast their views on their car tags. At the moment, those two challenges stand as follows: The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to deal with similar disputes in the past; in 2005, they let stand a lower court ruling that said South Carolina's Choose Life plates violate the First Amendment because abortion-rights supporters were not given a similar forum to express their beliefs.

Return to chronology 25 Jun 2006

2007, January 22: Overturning a censorial action due to mixed signals in the message

By the legislature of the State of Illinois. Judge David H. Coar, federal court, ordered state officials to offer license plates with the pro-adoption motto "Choose Life". The message is common to anti-sexualist ultra-conservatives, but in this case the plates were being sought by Choose Life Illinois Inc. which is formed largely by adoption advocates. The group has been trying for several years to get legislative approval. Judge Coar acknowledged concerns that the motto could be considered an anti-abortion slogan, but said in his opinion that he assumed that the request was prompted by a sincere interest in promoting adoption, and that the state must issue the plate as long as the sponsors can meet certain numerical and design requirements. The state's refusal to allow the specialty plates led to the lawsuit, which was filed on 28 Jun, and which accused the secretary of state of violating the constitutional rights of group members.

Judge Coar said in his opinion that: "[it was] undisputed that the reason for not approving the plate was because of the politically controversial nature of the message." He also said the message was irrelevant in any case: "The First Amendment protects unpopular, even some hateful speech," he said. "The message conveyed by the proposed license plate is subject to First Amendment protection." Spokesman David Druker said that the secretary of state's office plans to appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Choose Life license plates have been approved in about a dozen U.S. states, in some cases by legislatures that rejected proposals for license-plate designs supporting the abortion-rights viewpoint.

[I smell an equivocation. There's a big difference between using the slogan to advocate for adoption and to advocate for the revocation of personal liberty. For my money, Choose Life Illinois Inc. would be better off with plates reading "Choose Adoption". I'd like to know just what ties this group might have with religious organizations, what groups contribute to it, and what are the affiliations of the members who are not adoption advocates. See the source article for more background. --MN]

Return to chronology 25 Jun 2006

2007, May 07: MPEACHW

By Heather Morijah. Ms. Morijah thought it would be cute to have a personalized licence plate almost identical to the one on her partner's car. He had a blue Prius with the plate IMPCH W, and her's is silver. In the autumn of 2006, she paid the $25 extra to get MPEACHW. The plates arrived from the Rapid City, South Dakota branch of the DMV without any problem. on 18 Apr, Ms. Morijah got a letter saying: [The DMV] "is in receipt of a written complaint about your personalized plates. With this complaint I am sorry to inform you that the set of plates MPEACHW are being recalled. . . . You will have 10 days from the date of receiving this letter to surrender the plates." One person had complained to the department.

Ms. Morijah immediately called up the DMV, which refused to give her any information about the complaint on file, what other vanity plates had been issued, or what plates had been recalled, so she called Jennifer Ring, the executive director of the ACLU of the Dakotas. Ms. Ring told her not to hand her over her plates and to speak to the press. Ms. Morijah took that advice and contacted the Rapid City Journal, and staff writer Kevin Woster broke the story on 03 May. A firestorm of protest ensued.

DMV director Deb Hillmer commented about the basic situation: "I'm following the letter of the law. It's offensive to someone and not in good taste and decency. And the plates are the property of the state of South Dakota." The problem is that the plate is clearly not indecent or in bad taste. As Ms. Ring replied to this patently nonsensical effort to defend the indefensible: "[P]olitical speech such as 'impeach George Bush' is indisputably not 'indecent' or 'vulgar' in any respect. It may offend some citizens of South Dakota, but that is not a valid basis for the State to censor pure political speech." On this day the state reversed its decision in the face of overwhelming opposition to its stupidity.

Patrick Duffy, a Rapid City lawyer who has worked on key civil rights cases involving AmerIndian voting issues, says this action means that any personalized plate would have to be recalled because of a single complaint regardless of the message: "What this means is that every atheist can now wipe out anything that seems to refer to God. Will vanity plates for members of the armed forces suddenly be declared offensive if they offend a single pacifist? It's absolutely preposterous." He also pointed out that even obscenity must be judged by community standards, not just by one person, and further commented: "Here, all we need is one lone citizen who is apparently invested with the complete authority to determine what is good taste and decency for all the rest of us. It seems a little tyrannical to me."

For more background see Woman with MPEACHW Plates Prevails by Matthew Rothschild, reprinted at CommonDreams.org, and Woman resists DMV's call to return anti-Bush license plate, an AP article posted at First Amendment Center.

Return to chronology 25 Jun 2006

2007, August 09: JN36TN

By Shawn Byrne, of West Rutland, Vermont. The inscription is meant to be read as John, 3:16, and is a reference to the Biblical passage: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Mr. Byrne has been trying to have this inscription issued to him on a vanity licence plate for two and a half years, but the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles has been being obstructionist. The state rejected his first two requests -- JOHN316 and JN316 -- because of a rule against vanity plates with more than two numerals. It wasn't until he submitted JN36TN did they tell him that his request conflicts with rules forbidding religious viewpoints on license plates. He sought a judicial review of the regulation in 2006.

On this day, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier filed his 23-page report on the matter in U.S. District Court in Burlington. His decision was that in denying Byrne's request, the DMV had properly applied its policy. He wrote in part:

The state DMV has endeavored, though not perfectly, to restrict all references to any religion or deity from Vermont vanity plates. Such a practice is content-restrictive, not viewpoint-discriminatory. There is no evidence that [Byrne's] application was denied based on a bias against his viewpoint, Christianity or the Bible; but rather, because it was a reference to religion.

[...]

Since May 2004, the DMV has rejected plates referring to the Bible, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Wicca.

Mr. Byrne's attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, however, begged to differ. On 14 Aug he said that he planned to file an objection to the magistrate judge's report. He said the state has issued plates such as:

Mr. Tedesco is quoted: "When the state opens up vanity plates to wide-open expression on virtually any subject matter, including what people personally believe as their philosophy and belief system, they can't prohibit Christians or religious people from expressing their point of view on that same subject matter."

Return to chronology 09 Aug 2006

2007, September 25: UDINK1, UDINK2, UDINK3, UDINK4 vanity plates

By Mike and Shelly Udink and their children, Kalei and Kawika, respectively. "Udink" is a common Dutch name which has the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles in a tizzy over "offensiveness". The crux of the matter is, as Ms. Yvonne Bell pointed out, that "dink" has derogatory connotations. Ms. Bell sits on the Department of Motor vehicles panel that approves vanity plates, and as she and DMV spokesman David House stated, the word can be treated as a verb, making it a sexual reference, or it can be a racist slur against a Vietnamese. The "U" in the front could be construed as "You". The Oregon DMV denies requests for any combination of letters and numbers that may be viewed as objectionable, in any language, by use of phonetic, numeric or reverse spelling, or when viewed as a mirror image, or that would alarm or offend a reasonable person. Intimate body parts, sexual, or bodily functions are forbidden, as are offensive references to race, color, gender, ethnic heritage, national origin, to alcohol, or drugs or paraphernalia. Two of the plates are five and seven years old, one was issued in 2006, and when Kawika Udink's application was submitted during the summer of 2006, it was rejected and the state ordered that the other three plates be returned. Mr. House justified the action by saying the state has the right to censor license plates because the state owns them. Mr. Udink would like to know: "Since when can a panel dictate whether your name's offensive or not?"

[Chalk this one up to clear and present, blind compliance to petty, bureaucratic regulations. If House and Bell took their heads out of their paperwork they might realize that the regulations should not be applied against people's names. The regulation cites "reasonable people", but what about unreasonable bureaucracy? And there haven't even been any reported complaints about their plates. --MN]

Return to 25 Sep 2007 in chronology

2007, November 15: GETOSAMA

By Arno Herwerth. A 21-year veteran of the New York Police Department, he requested the plates in the Autumn of this year and received them on 02 Nov. In a letter to Mr. Herwerth on this day, the New York state DMV said they wanted them back. The agency cited a regulation prohibiting plates that could be considered "obscene, lewd, lascivious, derogatory to a particular ethnic group or patently offensive", none of which can possible apply to these plates. The DMV returned his previous generic license plates and asked that he send the "GETOSAMA" plates to its Albany headquarters. Mr. Herwerth said in a phone interview that it was important to him that the victims of the World Trade Center attacks be remembered. "I got the plates because of 9/11. I want to keep the message alive that this man needs to be killed or captured. It's been a long time, but we haven't forgotten."

Vincent Amicizia, Mr. Herwerth's attorney, is to seek a temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court that would prevent the DMV from revoking the plates. He maintains the plates are patriotic because the sentiment supports the U.S. war on terrorism, and is quoted: "That's the oddity of this case. I've never heard of a First Amendment case that seeks to suppress patriotic speech."

Tara Keenan-Thomson, executive director of the Nassau County chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, commented: "What is unique is that this message does reflect the policies of the present administration. When 'offensive' is applied to political views, it encroaches on free speech."

Return to 15 Nov 2007 in chronology

2008, January 13: Car talk: The hour may be late for the vanity PL8

By Gene Policinski. The First Amendment Center vice president/executive director, Mr. Policinski's commentary on vanity plate issues was posted to the site on this day. In it, he reports that some state legislatures are now introducing legislation to repeal all vanity plates. The movement is partly economics driven, as the small fees levied for such plates do not cover the cost of tracking and examining all plate proposals, but the movement also derives from people becoming increasingly "creatively vulgar", and therefore necessarily involve free speech issues.
Return to 13 Jan 2008 in chronology