Free Speech: NO2ST8*
US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit: Byrne v. Rutledge
Bumper stickers used to be the rage. But with the advent of painted bumpers, their decline was inevitable. Not many people are willing to damage their vehicle for the sake of a few pearls of wisdom (among the all time greats: “Keep Honking. I’m Reloading.”). They are, however, willing to pay a few bucks for a vanity plate, those cryptic DMV authorized messages in letters and numbers that can only be deciphered with near-spontaneous high-speed decoding (e.g., CUL8R).
States do have the right to impose some limits on this form of freeway free speech: No dirty words. No hate messages. And no religious messages, at least not in Vermont.
That is, until the court said no to the state*.
Shaun Byrne applied for plate “JN36TN.” As he said on his application, it meant John 3:16. “The parties agree that Byrne subjectively intended to refer to John 3:16, which states, ‘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.’” According to the DMV Byrne’s message was impermissible and would not be approved as a vanity plate. After losing the battle with the DMV Clerk, the DMV Commissioner and the District Court, Byrne looked to a higher authority.
Noting that Vermont’s DMV has permitted such displays as GENESIS (the applicant said it was the band, not the scripture), STJOHN (the island, not the Apostle), BUDDAH (the applicant’s nickname, not the deity), the Court of Appeals determined that Vermont’s reliance on the applicant’s subjective view of the plate was not an appropriate method to determine what was or was not allowable speech. In fact Mr. Byrne himself argued that “the combination JN36TN might have been permissible if his supplied meaning had been secular, for example, if he had put on his application that “[m]y name is John, I am 36, [and] I was born in Tennessee.” The court agreed. Moreover, the restriction on Byrne’s free speech was a tortured view of the separation of church and state.
Ok, the court didn’t say that last thing. I did.
What the court did say was this: “Whatever its stated intent, Vermont's ban on religious messages in practice operates not to restrict speech to certain subjects but instead to distinguish between those who seek to express secular and religious views on the same subjects.” Further, "[u]nder the current law, a motorist's personal philosophy, beliefs, and values are all permissible and frequent topics of expression,” but if the applicant admits that his beliefs are based on some religious teaching or predisposition, the state rejects the application as license plate proselytizing.
“This the state cannot do.”
Mr. Byrne gets his JN36TN plate.
Score this case: 14BYRNE. ST8LOST. GSUS12.
