Licensed to Plate

Vague laws and contradicting legal opinions on vanity license plates have people up in arms: censorship of free speech or protecting the public?

Several years ago, Maine passed a law in their state legislature eliminating most restrictions on what could be put onto vanity plates. Since that law passed, many custom plates containing obscenities, vulgar language, and crass terms have been issued to the public. While many people enjoyed touting their new license plates, many people in the state were not as receptive.

“We were getting complaints from the public about some of the plates that had proliferated,” says Director of Communications for Maine’s Secretary of State Emily Cook. Public outcry over the lax restrictions has gotten so bad, in fact, that the state legislature put in place much stricter regulations, just a few years after loosening the old ones. The new law specifies that plates consisting of language that encourages or may cause violence, is profane or obscene, makes a derogatory reference to a group, connotes genetalia or sexual acts, are all banned from being issued. Additionally, any plates that are already in use are subject to being recalled by the government.

The law change was widely popular with legislators voting overwhelmingly in favor of the regulations, 29-3. However, not everybody was happy. While some were upset they’d have to turn in their ‘I Tooted’ plates, others believed the new law was unconstitutional. The First Amendment ensures people’s right to express any opinion or belief without government censorship — though that is not always how it plays out.

In the case of license plates, those who support regulations say that it isn’t a violation of the First Amendment for several reasons. Firstly, there is a long established legal history of the government being able to restrict speech. Take, for example, disturbing the peace: many states’ definition of this law includes “[using] offensive words in a public place that are likely to result in a violent reaction.” These disturbing the peace laws have been challenged in court and ruled to be constitutional, so the logic can arguably be applied to license plates as well. If somebody has a license plate that has offensive words that are likely to result in a violent reaction, it can be determined they are disturbing the peace. The other main argument made by those in favor of regulation is that license plates are property of the state, not those whose car they’re on.

“[License plates] are government property, they’re not people’s personal property,” Cook said.

Since license plates are the government’s property, they argue it is completely within their right to choose what can and cannot be put on them; an example being the mottos or logos on each state’s license plates, such as New Hampshire’s ‘Live Free or Die.’ However, many people disagree with this interpretation.

“When the government provides a forum it becomes a first amendment issue,” says American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer Tom Lyons.

Lyons represented a client in an ACLU Rhode Island court case where a man had a license plate on his electric car that said ‘FKGAS.’ The man said the license plate was supposed to mean ‘Fake Gas,’ but many people interpreted it as ‘Fuck Gas.’ The owner of the plate said that he “supported that meaning as well.” The plate was originally approved by the state’s DMV, but later had a recall order placed on it. Lyons and his co-counsel argued that the laws regulating vanity plates are too vague and violate the First Amendment “by giving the DMV unbridled discretion to ban speech on the viewpoint of the message.” The judge involved in the case issued a preliminary injunction (a temporary order that the situation remains as it was before the trial until another motion or different court case determines an outcome that affects the situation). In the issuing of the injunction the judge stated that the term ‘offensive to good taste’ is too vague and likely violates the First Amendment.

As seen in these contradictory examples, the law is a fickle thing. In addition to people’s conflicting legal opinions on what is constitutional and what is not, there’s also the issue of interpretation. As demonstrated in the Rhode Island ACLU case, unclear messages such as ‘FKGAS’ can be interpreted in very different ways.

Still, who’s to say what anything means. The DMV hires regulators to individually check each custom license plate, but every regulator is going to potentially have a different opinion and different interpretation of what each license plate means. One regulator may not agree with another on what ‘profane or obscene’ language is. Is the word “crud” permissible? Some may consider it to be profane. How about ‘crap?’ If an individual appeals their rejected license plate to the state, the judge at their trial might rule differently than another judge from the same district. What about in cases where what the individual proposes to put on their plate isn’t so clear? A plate idea submitted to the Maryland DMV may be rejected, but that same plate might be accepted in Montana. All of this is to say that opinion and interpretation play strong roles in what is and is not acceptable, and result in what amounts to a very bureaucratic system.

There’s a mountain of other legal arguments that can be started here, such as how, with Maine’s new regulations, it’s illegal to have a license plate that makes a derogatory reference to a specific group, despite the Supreme Court recently issuing a decision in Lee V. Tam stating that language derogatory to a specific group can still be used in public settings in certain circumstances, including if that person is a member of said group. If an individual secures a license plate that is derogatory to a group they’re a part of, is that still illegal?

“The easiest solution is obvious,” says Lyons, “Abolish custom license plates.” The hassle involved in the system would be avoided, individuals would no longer be exposed to obscene messages, and all the conflicts, legal arguments, and battles could be avoided. But states won’t abolish custom license plates, they’re too profitable. The state of California alone made over $3 million dollars from vanity plate purchases. Just this last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law legalizing a new type of custom license plate: digital plates. These new digital plates include additional perks not offered with the existing vanity plates such as Auto-renewal of the driver’s registration, choosing between light and dark modes, location tracking, anti-theft technology, and personalized banners. These plates have already begun to pop up on cars across the state. The cost for all these benefits, however, runs at an extraordinary charge of between $215-275 every year. And the government revenue from these endeavors, in the eyes of the state, outweighs the cons that come with the system.

At the end of the day, legislators and voters alike will continue to bicker over the proper way to handle vanity plates. Some will forever insist on the freedom to parade around with absurd, yet hilarious plates. But in the one state where regulations were temporarily abolished, the public was quick to complain. The takeaway? Beauty is in the eye of the plate holder.