Oklahoman Keith Kimmel asked for a personalized license plate with the text “IM GAY.” No, said the Oklahoma Tax Commission’s Motor Vehicle Division, and a Tax Commission Administrative Law Judge agreed: The license plate is rejected because of a rule that says, “No special license plate will be issued which may be offensive to the general public.”
Now it’s an interesting question whether such exclusion decisions violate the First Amendment. The burden on self-expression is slight, since the denial of the plate doesn’t prevent Mr. Kimmel from having a bumper sticker with exactly the same message. What’s more, the license plate might be seen a form of government speech, and that the government should be free not to associate itself with messages it disapproves of.
The lower court decisions I’ve seen generally conclude that viewpoint discrimination in issuing personalized license plates is unconstitutional (I speak here of the unique car identification tag on the plate; programs that provide for special background designs are a more complicated matter). Applying this test would require some inquiry into whether the policy here is viewpoint-neutral. (Mr. Kimmel argues that STR8FAN and STR8SXI were allowed, but it’s not clear whether they might just not have been recognized as sexual orientation references.)
But I want to set that aside here and focus instead on the rationale the Commission gave: That the very message “IM GAY” is “offensive to the general public” in Oklahoma. It’s not just that the general public might disagree with the message, or might think that the conduct it describes is immoral. That one publicly admits to doing or being something bad (assuming for purposes of this argument that being gay is bad, which is not my view) isn’t inherently “offensive to the general public.”
Rather, the very self-identification as gay, with no sexually explicit references or anything along those lines, is seen as “offensive” to the general public by the Oklahoma Tax Commission. If that’s true, then that reveals a pretty sad state of affairs.
Alternatively, parts of the decision suggest the rationale may be subtly different:
At hearing, the Division articulated three (3) “unofficial” categories of PLPs which may be offensive to the general public: “Sexual Connotations,” “Racial or Ethic Comments,” and “Cuss Words.” …The Applicant does admit “IM GAY” could denote sexual orientation or preference, which could have a sexual connotation, just as “Straight” does, but denies that his sexual orientation may be offensive to the general public.
But the “sexual connotation” of “gay” is roughly on par with the sexual connotation of “wife” or “husband” — it refers to a status that is generally connected to sex (not always, since one can have marriage without sex just as one can be sexually attracted to the same sex without having sex, but generally), but without any sexual explicitness. It’s not reasonable to treat that vague sort of “sexual connotation,” I think, as “offensive to the general public.”
Finally, note that the Commission is not stressing “may” as referring to a mere possibility that some people are offended. One can imagine such a rule, in which the Commission might concluded that even a generally inoffensive term might be forbidden on the grounds that it “may be offensive to the general public” in the sense that every member of the public “may be” offended by it, even if the chance that they will be offended is just 1%. But that’s not the rule the Commission actually seems to be applying: Its test appears to focus on “the tag’s
offensiveness from an objective standard to people of ordinary intelligence.” And if the Oklahoma government thinks that “IM GAY” is offensive from an objective standard to people of ordinary intelligence, that is a pretty poor reflection on either the Oklahoma government or on the Oklahoma general public.
(The decision was handed down in October, but I only recently learned about it from the February lawsuit challenging the decision, and it’s taken several weeks to get a copy of it.)
rj says:
What if he was just a very happy man who got transported from the 1890s to today?
March 17, 2010, 3:38 pmHans Bader says:
An Oklahoma trial judge let a plaintiff’s lawyer harp on the sexual orientation of a Pizza Hut manager in a lawsuit against Pizza Hut, even though it was irrelevant to the case (the lawsuit alleged sexual harassment by customers, not the manager).
Incredibly, the Tenth Circuit held that this was harmless error.
No, the bias against gay people was not harmless. And the commentary above suggests an additional reason why.
March 17, 2010, 3:45 pmCornellian says:
They should allow it just as a reward for having the guts to use that plate in Oklahoma.
March 17, 2010, 3:50 pmNobody Really says:
Well, if the license plate said “YOU RE GAY” how would you feel about it?
I think it is a license plate that aims to be offensive, Hans Bader gives a good example of the type of people it is intended to offend.
Which is why vanity license plates should in general be a problem – if the Government needs to regulate speech to have them, then it shouldn’t have them.
March 17, 2010, 3:52 pmPLR says:
I live in a state bordering Okieland, but cannot speculate whether a sorry state of affairs may lie in its state government or its population.
But I do wonder why there would be any major disparity between the two bodies.
March 17, 2010, 3:53 pmEMB says:
Yeah, I wouldn’t be too surprised if “gay” just got on the cuss words list due to people requesting “U R GAY” and the like.
March 17, 2010, 4:05 pmRPT says:
Re the permitted plates, the owners are problem country music fans of George Strait. Seriously…..
March 17, 2010, 4:05 pmHouston Lawyer says:
I don’t think that anywhere near a majority of people would agree with the first sentence. You may hope that at some point this is true, but it is not true now.
Also, I think the Commission in Oklahoma is expressing the view of most Okies.
March 17, 2010, 4:06 pmRoger says:
No, “I’m gay” is not comparable to “wife”. It connotes a sexual lifestyle that many people find offensive. And not just in Oklahoma. Furthermore, someone who puts that on a license plate would appear to be advertising a sexual lifestyle to anonymous strangers. I would not be surprised if most Americans would be against such a license plate.
March 17, 2010, 4:09 pmRandy says:
I don’t think that anywhere near a majority of people would agree with the first sentence.
Also, I think the Commission in Oklahoma is expressing the view of most Okies.”
So we must bow to the political correctness of Okies in limiting our expressive possibilities in license plates? That’s a new one.
March 17, 2010, 4:10 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Without an objective standard, this is a heckler’s veto. I can think of no objective standard by which “IM GAY” is offensive.
March 17, 2010, 4:10 pmMark N. says:
I wonder how broadly the “racial or ethnic comments” exclusion is. Would, for example, “IM BLACK” be excluded on that basis? If so, extending that to prohibit mentions of sexual orientation might be consistent. Admittedly, it’s not the argument they’re making.
March 17, 2010, 4:15 pmRandy says:
Roger: ” It connotes a sexual lifestyle that many people find offensive. And not just in Oklahoma. Furthermore, someone who puts that on a license plate would appear to be advertising a sexual lifestyle to anonymous strangers.”
This is so strange. We are told constantly by many people in America that there is no right to avoid being offended. Now we are told that we must stop offending people.
If I see a plate that says “REDNECK” or “GOOD OLE BOY” that connotes a lifestyle that hates gays and seeks to beat us up. If that offends me, you would support government suppression of those plates?
March 17, 2010, 4:23 pmA Reader says:
I’m frankly not sure how a person who is offended by the mere knowledge that someone sharing a road space with them is gay can get through the day without constantly having the vapors. Or is it that they’re offended that someone they’re sharing the road with is publicly proclaiming to be gay? Still, do these people have TVs? Look at magazines in the supermarket? How do they function in society?
March 17, 2010, 4:28 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
Admit it Eugene, by posting this you’re trying to coax Clayton Cramer out of his hiding place.
March 17, 2010, 4:33 pmtheobromophile says:
Agree that this is a sad state of affairs, but disagree with this rationale:
Sexual orientation refers, presumably, solely to sexual activity. “Wife” or “husband”, as many gay-marriage advocates continually point out, is about much more than that.
Thing is, if this type of speech could offend the people of Oklahoma, then the man would be terribly courageous for getting the license plate and there would be more, not less, reason to give it to him.
March 17, 2010, 4:38 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Officials in Oklahoma might not be willing to admit it, but the true reason for rejecting this particular license plate has more to do with public safety than public offense.
A more than possible result – in Oklahoma – to granting the “Im Gay” license plate would be that the grantee would then affix the plate to his or her car and then drive on the public roads.
The more than possible result of THIS would be for another citizen-driver – in Oklahoma – to take offense to the plate and reach behind to the rifle rack and let loose a barrage of lead projectiles toward the ‘offending’ license plate.
The more than possible result of this would be for the “Im Gay” driver to lose control of his or her car and either end up in a single vehicle accident or, worse, a multiple vehicle accident.
The former would raise insurance rates for one individual and possibly lead to hospitalization (and thus use of government run medicine, increasing costs thereof).
The later would have the same results, multiplied by the number of vehicles involved, but with the added effect of causing delays in other drivers getting to meetings on time, etc.
Thus – in Oklahoma – this was seen as a substantial risk to person and property, with additional impacts on the cost of federally run medical care (presuming this happens more than a month into the future).
March 17, 2010, 4:40 pmDotar Sojat says:
……or it could lead to him getting rear ended. (Its OK with me if you block this)
March 17, 2010, 4:46 pmAlinAustin says:
Would Oklahoma allow a plate that said “I’m hetero”? Perhaps the state has an interest in not having its license plates displaying information about the driver’s sexual practices.
March 17, 2010, 4:48 pmAlinAustin says:
Would Oklahoma allow a plate that said “I’m hetero”? Perhaps the state has an interest in not having its license plates displaying information about the driver’s sexual practices.
March 17, 2010, 4:49 pmDavid Schwartz says:
But “IM GAY” does not describe the driver’s sexual practices. One can be gay and celibate. What it describes is a pattern of attractions. It roughly says “were I to have romantic associations, I would prefer them to be with those of my own gender”.
Objectively, how is that offensive?
March 17, 2010, 4:56 pmPintler says:
Indeed. I would go farther and subsidize offensive plates. They are sort of a vaccine for narrow mindedness, and narrow mindedness certainly causes as much harm to society as, say, measles.
March 17, 2010, 4:56 pmkumquat says:
Seriously? You seriously think someone would *shoot* at a car that is both occupied and in motion, risking all manner of injury to the lives and property of everybody in the vicinity, just because the license plate says the owner’s gay? Mind you, there is no ban on bumper stickers that convey the same message, and I would be very surprised if this fellow’s region of Oklahoma had *zero* residents with such bumper stickers on their cars.
Do you believe Oklahoma to be entirely populated by barbarians?
March 17, 2010, 5:01 pmNobody Really says:
What are your objective standards in offensiveness in any context? Offense is an emotional reaction that doesn’t classify well into objective standards.
Let me give you another interpretation of “IM GAY:” You are a homophobe, so I am throwing it in your face that I am gay in order to upset your world view and force you to recognize that there are many gay people around you. So what is offensive is the implication that you are a homophobe.
I think that is likely the intent.
March 17, 2010, 5:07 pmLibertarian1 says:
Wouldn’t you be offended if someone had a license plate with the 6 letter “N” word? I would and think I should have the right not to be offended.
Once we agree certain words are offensive and should be prohibited on license plates than where the line is drawn is subjective and probably majoritarian.
March 17, 2010, 5:14 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Good God, kumquat
are you seriously asking that question?
March 17, 2010, 5:20 pmS says:
What? Nobody Really? I doubt the “general public” draws an implication, such as you describe, in order to become offended.
March 17, 2010, 5:23 pmUrso says:
The idea that Oklahomans would just wildly start firing at a gay person, just because, is both out of touch and insanely offensive (and I’m not oklahoman!)
Would his car get keyed up or otherwise vandalized? Unfortunately, I think the answer is almost certainly yes. But that’s not a public safety issue.
I think the real reason is they want to avoid the headache of dealing with letters to the editor about how dare the Oklahoma DOTD try to cram homosexuality down our throats by allowing this kind of license plate, etc etc. Telling this guy ‘no’ is just the path of least resistance (or so they thought)
March 17, 2010, 5:24 pmfirst history says:
More likely the car will get vandalized and the plate stolen, though this is not a reason to ban the inscription. A friend of mine had to attach his vanity plate with special bolts because it was stolen several times. It said NUKE SC, a sentiment Prof. Volokh should be familiar with.
March 17, 2010, 5:24 pmslimslowslider says:
Roger the Shrubber made me literally LOL.
Thanks, Roger!
March 17, 2010, 5:27 pmRecovering Law Grad says:
I think Prof. Volokh’s point re: the relationship betw. the word “gay” and the words “wife” and “husband” is that all are simply factual statements that bear on or reflect something about one’s sexuality. He was not saying that “wife” and “husband” *only* bear on sexuality (as the commenter who said the words “are much more than that” suggested) just that they do, in fact, bear on sexuality – as does the word “gay.”
His broader point was that simply stating a fact the bears on one’s sexual status – without getting into anything explicit – is usually not inherently offensive, and is not inherently offensive in this instance.
And he’s right.
What I’m sensing here is that some people either (a) think being gay is a choice, or (b) think stating that one is gay necessarily says something about one’s sexual practices. (Or both.)
The problem that flows from the former is that they think choosing to “be gay” is wrong and, therefore, one’s announcement of that choice is offensive. The problem that flows from the latter is that they think stating that one is gay is akin to stating that one participates in certain sexual practices with a member of the same sex – public announcements of which they find offensive.
Where these folks go wrong is that (a) people do not choose to be gay, and (b) one who says he or she is gay is not necessarily saying anything about what he or she does in the bedroom. When I was in junior high school, it was well known that I was straight, but I couldn’t get a girl to touch me with a ten foot pole, so proclaiming my straightness was definitely not saying anything about my sexual habits.
March 17, 2010, 5:28 pmShelbyC says:
Isn’t the correct line here that they can have content based restrictions but not viewpoint based ones, since this is a designated limited public forum? It would seem that offensive to the general public would be too tied to viewpoint based, although they probably could get away with a rule against references to same sex sex (at least wrt the first amendment).
March 17, 2010, 5:30 pmS says:
You don’t know what you’re talking about, Doug. http://www.ogra.net
March 17, 2010, 5:30 pmleo marvin says:
The lesson is that liberals are intolerant authoritarians.
March 17, 2010, 5:31 pmyankee says:
How is this not a case of constitutionally impermissible unfettered discretion?
March 17, 2010, 5:39 pmReader says:
Many of the comments in this thread are just pointless gay-bashing.
March 17, 2010, 5:40 pmRandy says:
Bromo: “Sexual orientation refers, presumably, solely to sexual activity.”
Actually, sexual orientation refers solely to which gender you are attracted to. As others have pointed out, one can be gay and celebate, and one can be gay and have sex with opposite sex people.
If anyone is offended by this plate, then they really have a problem. Presumably, the person who wants the plate is indeed gay, so he is merely stating factual assertion, the truth. Yet what some people are claiming is that the truth offends them so much, they must suppress it. Not sure why, but that’s apparently the logic. Is it that if they suppress this, they can believe that gays don’t exist? Or that they will just disappear?
What is interesting is that everyone reads into the person an intent by which they have absolutely no knowledge of. We have no idea why the person wants this plate, yet Doug in San Diego is sure he knows his intent. I would suggest that this plate is more a rorshach test that reveals more about you than anything else.
Perhaps that is what people are *really* afraid of.
March 17, 2010, 5:41 pmRandy says:
Doug: ‘Good God, kumquat
are you seriously asking that question?”
I think he is. And so am I. It would be nice to have an answer.
March 17, 2010, 5:44 pmNobody Really says:
Of course the standard is “may” not “will.” That is the problem with this kind of speech regulation – it is arbitrary. Someone decides, and the regulator (whether at the Oklahoma Tax Commission’s Motor Vehicle Division or a judge) will have the power to decide.
For some things there are no choices (such as fighting words), but here there is a simple option – the Government should not be in the vanity plate business – let people put on bumper stickers.
March 17, 2010, 5:46 pmptt says:
Not entirely, of course, but, insofar as it is, the Oklahoma Senate is trying to keep it under wraps:
Okla. Senate Opts Out of Hate-Crime Act
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/11/Okla_Bill_Opts_Out_of_Hate_Crime_Protections/
Interestingly, a quick search finds no coverage of the vote in the mainstream press. The link above is to the most “mainstream” gay publication there is, so don’t be tooooo scared to check it out. Be prepared, however, to see exposed male pectorals in some of the ads.
March 17, 2010, 6:10 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Mine are much the same as the ones they’re supposed to be using. Insults, sexual references, racial or ethnic slurs, and the like.
Other people’s unreasonable interpretations amount to a heckler’s veto. Would you argue that the license plate “LAWYER” is similarly objectionable, as it might mean that the plate owner is trying to claim that his pride at being a lawyer is a response to everyone else’s distaste for lawyers.
The intent doesn’t matter, the inquiry is objective, not subjective. It doesn’t matter if he means he’s happy.
March 17, 2010, 6:21 pmEarly Bird says:
Having just returned from the state of Oklahoma yesterday, I can say uniquivocally that the license plate in question was offensive to all of the Oklahomans I met whose views I ascertained on the subject. I went to a church while there, and I must say that there is little that could be more offensive to them, judging by the content of the homily.
March 17, 2010, 6:29 pmDougInSanDiego says:
I suspect you would prefer to argue regarding things homosexual with people with whom you do not agree, as opposed to discuss. However, given the nature of the holiday today, I’ll presume that’s wrong and give it a shot.
From your comment I conclude you see the Great State of Oklahoma opting out of the hate crime Act as proof the Sate is populated with barbarians. From the facts I have seen, opting out of the Act may be a rational act rather than an act of hatred or discrimination.
The latest FBI Hate crimes report i have seen was the 2008 version:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/victims.html
A TOTAL of ‘only’ 1,706 “sexual orientation” hate crimes were reported for the FULL YEAR for EVERY STATE. Now, before you go off on the ‘only’ part – I agree; ONE ‘hate crime’ is one too many. But, let’s look at the problem to determine its magnitude.
Let’s assume EVERY SO hate crime was anti-gay. That is still less than the number of hate crimes based on religion. I would like to see your offense at that as well as your offense at the anti-gay hate crimes.
Of the 1,706 such crimes, 802 (approximately; using the FBI percentage breakout for all categories) were ‘mere’ intimidation not involving violence of any kind. Again, while reprehensible, I for one do not place as much disgust on the non-violent hate crimes.
That leaves a TOTAL – for all states, for every day of the year – of ‘only’ 846 such crimes.
Certainly each one of these crimes had an indeterminately large impact on the victim. Certainly also, there are some or many unreported hate crimes (no doubt true for every category). Still, I do not see this reaching the level of atrocity compared to many, many other problems as to warrant special legislation. I’m sure you disagree; perhaps, though, you can see the possibility that others – based on the facts – would logically come to the same conclusion as do I.
Reaching that conclusion, one would not see Oklahoma’s “opting out” as gay hatred but merely as a rational and objective conclusion reached on the facts.
I feel as did Prof. Volokh in needing to add a lot of caveats so as to head off certain reactions. Hopefully I did an OK job of that, as I am trying to generate a rational discussion, not an argument.
March 17, 2010, 6:33 pmAlanmt says:
I would think that a proper judicial determination could find the license plate not reasonably offensive upon its face, early bird’s demographic study notwithstanding, but the tax court held that the applicant failed to meet his burden of offering any evidence of its nonoffensiveness other than his own personal opinion.
It seems to me that another application for this very license plate could be made by an individual who has compiled some evidence.
March 17, 2010, 6:36 pmJust Dropping By says:
So I take it you’re new to the world of Volokh Conspiracy comments?
March 17, 2010, 6:43 pmSigivald says:
STR8FAN is easily interpeted as “my car has a forced-air straight-8 engine”.
Indeed, that make more sense than “I am a fan of heterosexuality”, because who’d bother to advertise that?
March 17, 2010, 6:44 pmPubliusFL says:
This reminds me of the (likely apocryphal) story an Aggie colleague once told me of the new graduate of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets who had just been commissioned in the U.S. Air Force. He wanted to proudly proclaim his status as an Air Force Aggie on his car’s license plate. But “AFAG” didn’t go over quite as he expected.
March 17, 2010, 6:48 pmptt says:
You’re missing one aspect of the law the Oklahoma Senate is trying to wiggle out of: required reporting. The figures you refer to do not cover “every state” because many either do not tally or do not report either 1) any hate crimes or 2) anti-gay hate crimes*.
As you point out, it is a holiday on which one might use caution when evaluating an argument. If a link to a page about the Oklahoma Gay Rodeo tries to pass as proof of non-barbarity of an entire state, then I can see why you might think my link is an attempt to prove the barbarity of the same state.
It wasn’t, of course. Among other considerations, 9 Senators voted against the bill.
* e.g. Oklahoma
March 17, 2010, 6:51 pmDougInSanDiego says:
ptt:
I’m sure you are correct: not every state reports; not all crimes are reported in those states that do.
But that applies, I suspect, to ALL crimes and thus is a wash when comparing categories of crimes against each other.
FYI: I DID NOT PROVIDE THE LINK TO THE GAY RODEO SITE. Sorry.
Have a GREAT St. Paddy’s day, and do not drive and drink!
March 17, 2010, 6:58 pmKimberly says:
“the “sexual connotation” of “gay” is roughly on par with the sexual connotation of “wife” or “husband” — it refers to a status that is generally connected to sex … but without any sexual explicitness”
If only more people understood that. It’s remarkable how otherwise reasonable people become baboons as soon as the words “gay” or “homosexual” are used.
March 17, 2010, 7:35 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Yeah, who do you think hangs around here . . . liberals? libertarians?
March 17, 2010, 8:11 pmMalvolio says:
Gay rodeo? Gay rodeo?
Show of hands, how many people first that it was a bunch of cowboys on horses chasing around of panicked gay guys, maybe trying to lasso and hogtie them?
Just me, I guess…
March 17, 2010, 8:38 pmLonelyArtistClub says:
So, I grew up in Oklahoma and have lived there for roughly 20 years now. I’m only mildly offended by some of the comments about my state on here, because every time I travel out of the region (especially when I lived in Chicago and spent some time in Washington D.C. and Europe) the only reaction I get is that we’re a bunch of incredible homophobic rednecks….. ummm…. not true.
Would like to proudly say I’m a supporter of the transgender candidate who is running for the OK House Seat currently occupied by the infamous “gays are more dangerous than terrorists” Sally Kern. There are other members of the local government who support gay rights and are also LGBT.
Just because we have a number of state officials are bigots and idiots doesn’t mean we all are. How many of you would like to be judged as “being like” the member of Congress that represents your district? I don’t think the majority of people in Charlie Rangel’s district cheat on their taxes just because they elected somebody that did. I don’t think the residents of South Carolina have a hard on for South American girls.
Yeah there might be a few more homophobes than average here, but i’ve lived here 20 years and I still don’t know a single person with a gun rack in their car/truck.
March 17, 2010, 8:56 pmmememe says:
That the statement is true does not by that light alone make it non-offensive. If someone had IM PERV or I MSTRB8, these could easily be true, but still offensive.
So, given that the government is controlling what words are allowed, it gets down to a basic argument about whether being gay is offensive. Certainly, there was a time when it was very taboo. So, even if lately, the climate is more accepting, it is not inconceivable, that someone (or many people, enough people) would be offended.
QED.
March 17, 2010, 9:32 pmSteverino says:
Well, all I can say is that when I was in the Navy, the department heads in my squadron found the “I’m gay, and I’m proud” bumper stickers that a disgruntled pilot put on their cars after getting a bad FITREP to be highly offensive.
Of course, I apparently served in a different Navy than the one former Rep. Massa served in.
I’m sorry; I just can’t take this topic seriously.
Especially with comments like this:
DougInSanDiego, I’ve got good news for you. I grew up in CA and I’ve been to OK, and despite your stereotypes OK is the more civilized of the two. If you want to experience venom, drive through San Francisco with an old Bush/Cheney bumper sticker. Better yet, park, and see if your car isn’t keyed.
Besides, as I recall, the last news story I read about someone reaching for their rifle and letting loose with a barrage of lead projectiles at the offending gay took place in San Francisco. Three cousins from Hayward. Of course, the lead projectiles were from a BB gun.
It’s sort of unfair, don’t you think, to project the sort of violence that takes place in CA on decent places like OK.
Word to the wise; if you’re a junior in high school getting a vanity plate declaring your sexual orientation, you’re not demonstrating your courage. You’re demonstrating your desperation.
March 17, 2010, 9:45 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Steve. I have no idea what I could have written to make it more clear that this was NOT to be taken seriously. Obviously I failed, since 2 others than you did not get the silliness of the spoof …….
Regarding the Ok. culture in real life:
I start each day off with a little meeting; one of the attendees was born/raised in Ok., was a wildcatter before escaping to the Marines and later college. From this one example – repeated daily – there just may be a reasonable density of folks in Ok. who are not all that fond of homosexuality. But that’s different story ……… the spoof was supposed to be .. a spoof.
March 17, 2010, 10:32 pmNobody Really says:
Unreasonable is in the eye of the beholder, which is my point.
March 17, 2010, 11:01 pmSteverino says:
I apologize. These days, it’s nearly impossible to tell what’s meant to be serious and what’s not. I see so many headlines that I think should be a joke, but aren’t, that I’ve lost my ability to distinguish.
For example, an actual headline:
Seriously.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/03/16/1111118/dicks-gets-shot-at-raising-houses.html?storylink=rss
Isn’t your immediate reaction like mine; everyone else had a shot at lowering it, why shouldn’t the dicks have a shot at raising it?
March 17, 2010, 11:27 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Now THAT is funny
…………. or sad!
March 17, 2010, 11:39 pmChaon says:
“IM GAY” is not offensive. But “IMAFURRY” should clearly be prohibited.
March 17, 2010, 11:53 pmSteverino says:
Is my apology accepted?
March 18, 2010, 12:03 amJohn Jenkins says:
The case was dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice on 26 February:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2570392&db=Oklahoma
Not sure why it took so long to get a copy of the petition, EV, but if you ever have another one you need out of Oklahoma County, I’ll be happy to try to expedite it for you.
March 18, 2010, 12:08 amChris Travers says:
I apologize for the discretion and free association here, but….
Any time the subject of offensive license plates come up, I am reminded of A55 RGY (apparently a non-custom Florida license plate, made much funnier by the interaction of the background with the number).
Honestly, 3M TA3 though is often blacklisted for being offensive. So maybe the threshold is a bit low anyway…..
On to the substantive issues…..
I suppose it would be more interesting if we can determine if “NOT GAY” would be offensive. Anyone here choose to give an opinion of that?
March 18, 2010, 12:30 amDougInSanDiego says:
I am deeply offended by that, as it implies hatred and a vile disrespect for all homosexual persons everywhere, and is tantamount to saying you wish to build gas chambers and again try to genocide gays out of existence in gas chambers. You are a hater. You are a bigot.
ps: satire, Chris.
TO: Steverino:
Yes, Steverino, we are again gay lovers.
March 18, 2010, 12:35 amChris Travers says:
While I recognize that was satire, the reason for asking this is that I don’t believe there could be an objective reason for holding ‘IM GAY’ as offensive to the point of denying the request while holding ‘NOT GAY’ to a different standard and allowing it.
March 18, 2010, 12:43 amSteverino says:
Ahh, thank Gaia!
March 18, 2010, 1:11 amDougInSanDiego says:
Gaia?
Ouch.
Chris: In theory no doubt what you say is impossible to argue against. However, in reality 2.3% of the population is gay; some others are bisexual or indeterminate, and 90 some percent heterosexual. Thus, the “weighted offense” (that’s a scientific term for the offense multiplied by the number of offended people, divided by the total number of people) for “I’m Hetero” is impossible to even be in the ballpark. It’s just a numbers thing and not related to the purety of right and wrong.
March 18, 2010, 1:52 amAnatid says:
Depends what region you’re in, I guess. If you were to stroll around the campus of UC Santa Cruz, I’m willing to bet you could find more people offended by the word “wife” (with its historical connotations of sexism and oppression, a UCSC feminist might argue) than the word “gay.”
March 18, 2010, 5:22 amDYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » “IM GAY” License Plate “Offensive to the General Public,” Oklahoma Government Agency Concludes says:
[...] Read it. [...]
March 18, 2010, 7:51 amAssistant Village Idiot says:
Most vanity plates offend me, actually. So what? My problem.
March 18, 2010, 8:51 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
What if the applicant’s name is “Gay”?; what if his name is “Gay”, and he is homosexual?
March 18, 2010, 9:04 amegd says:
I think this is probably the real reason.
I’d guess that someone named Frank Charles from Kansas couldn’t get a license plate that read FCKU either, despite the non-offensive intent.
March 18, 2010, 9:58 amFedya says:
What about a license plate reading “IM SLUT”?
March 18, 2010, 10:07 amtheobromophile says:
On a lighter note, there were a slew of plates issued at the RMV near my hometown that were rather interesting. One friend from high school had 4469EZ; I knew another family that accidentally got 6969EZ.
March 18, 2010, 10:26 amShelbyC says:
I wonder if FCUK would work?
March 18, 2010, 11:07 amShelbyC says:
Heh. Et tu, DMV?
March 18, 2010, 11:08 amJMA says:
Assistant said:
Bwahaha! Ok, here’s the part of the discussion where I do have to admit that, unless the vanity plate in question is a reference to the car it’s attached to (“B4D-V3T,” perhaps, or “TOY-CAR” or some crap like that), and that car is worthy of admiration and/or drool (think Stingray, or maybe one of those kit Cobras)…
Yeah. I hate vanity plates.
A tangent: I wonder how many people have had plates with “SS” rejected because of possible negative connotations? (And while I do understand that some may find the phrase “Super Sport” itself to be offensive, in this case I’m referring to other possible negative connotations.)
March 18, 2010, 11:41 amKen Arromdee says:
Problem is, there’s a fine line between a spoof, and a straw man.
March 18, 2010, 11:41 amNobody Really says:
I would say it may be intended to be offensive to gay people, and should be excluded under the same standard. But if the court grants the right to have a vanity plate of “IM GAY” it would be a very cool counter protest plate.
March 18, 2010, 12:44 pmHonest to God True says:
Back in the early-mid 90s, there used to be a guy who toodled around Dupont Circle in DC in his car with a VA license plate that read “A BOTTOM.”
March 18, 2010, 12:53 pmJohn says:
I agree that wife or husband isn’t quite the same level as gay, but it is certainly the same level as lover and I have seen that on vanity tags.
March 18, 2010, 2:07 pmJohn says:
Yes :)
March 18, 2010, 2:20 pmChris Travers says:
Also, if the idea is that “IM GAY” is offensive because it refers to something that includes sexual activity, would “MARRIED” be offensive too?
March 18, 2010, 2:40 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Actually, in this case, it’s an objective inquiry. The objective analysis was presented elsewhere in the thread. You are free to find errors or mistakes in it, but simply responding that its validity is in the eye of the beholder is not a rational response — it’s the equivalent to “that’s what you think”.
One can create a way a hypothetical person (and even many actual people) could be offended by anything. That’s not the test. The test is an objective one and tests whether it meets specific categories of offense. The category it is claimed to fall into here is sexual references. It is, objectively, not a sexual reference.
March 18, 2010, 3:08 pmBrad Ford says:
It is important to remember that the plate is actually a government license. As such, anything printed on them could be considered government speech.
While most states want to allow vanity plates (in part because of the extra revenue) for frivolous things like:I M BOB, 69 CHEVY, or GO [sports team], they want to avoid allowing that could be considered controversial.
If the state allowed IM GAY on a license plate, it would be hard to prohibit someone from having UR AHOMO or IMQUEER on his/her plate.
March 18, 2010, 3:10 pmShawn-non-Anonymous says:
In Florida, you can pick from a variety of plate styles like:
Family First
Family Values
In God We Trust
My all-time favorite: Choose Life
http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/specialtytags/
United for Choice is planning on responding with their own plate.
http://licensetochoose.org/?page_id=231
I wonder if it would be more offensive to put “IM GAY” on a “Choose Life” plate?
March 18, 2010, 3:43 pmMe says:
It may be content discrimination, but it’s not viewpoint discrimination unless they would have issued a gay-bashing license plate.
March 18, 2010, 3:58 pmJoeSixpack says:
If they’re going to be fair, they should also offer a plate that says “Choose Death”.
March 18, 2010, 4:07 pmGood Examples says:
The Smoking Gun has archives of letters to the DMV over denied plates and plates other motorists found offensive, just as examples of what all is out there. Some are pretty funny.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/blueplate/blueplate.html
And, as it turns out, both New York State and Florida have a number of prohibited phrases in their official lists that aren’t all that different from “IMGAY.” For example, “GAYPRID.” So I’m not sure this is just an Oklahoma thing.
March 18, 2010, 6:18 pmNobody Really says:
I did, you just missed the point. The objective analysis consists of deciding how people (adults of ordinary intelligence) may take the statement. If you then reject the analysis as self-evidently unreasonable, then that is just your viewpoint. Reasonable is a judgment call, and judgment belongs to the regulator – which is the problem.
March 18, 2010, 7:12 pmartisan002 says:
Being a citizen of Tulsa, OK, I can tell you that this state is largely anti-gay as an undercurrent. Most people don’t generally put up a fuss about it. In fact, a reasonable portion of them are outright patronizing. But, all that changes when they decide gay people are being casually public with their sexual interests.
There is a distinct irony in our statistical citizenry, though. Throughout the ’70s and ’80s, Tulsa’s population contained one of the largest percentages of gay people in the nation. Now, mind you that was per capita or percentage. Raw numbers would tend to diminish the impact of that figure. But, that still means we had greater odds of crossing paths with a gay person here than in say Dallas or Chicago.
At this time, I am aware of 3 gay/lesbian bars within jogging distance of my house — the lesbian bar has been there for probably 20 years. As a point of contrast, travelling 1.25 miles west of my neighborhood, you’ll find a hip hop club. And 2 miles south of here is The Caravan, one of the longest surviving Country and Western clubs in the city. And local authorities have regularly had issues with crimes of passion from those and other venues, not the least of which being gay bashing.
Ultimately, it is a safe bet to say a large portion of Oklahomans would take offense to a vanity plate such as “IM GAY”. But, this should come as no surprise being the home state of Oral Roberts, Church On The Move and the deadliest race riot in American history. Where I run afoul with such a ruling is that they have no qualms about permitting vanity plates like “GODBLSS” and “03-16″. I have been told that one car in Tulsa even has a plate that says “REPENT”.
Therefore, it seems not to be about the driver’s sexual preferences, but about the moral majority’s comfort zone…
March 19, 2010, 4:20 amartisan002 says:
Looking at that list of vanity plate names, I’m left wondering if “PR0N” or “PWND” would be banned.
March 19, 2010, 4:25 amAnatid says:
How can “owned,” which when used with that spelling refers to defeating a competitor, usually at a computer game, possibly be construed as sexual or otherwise inappropriate? Am I missing something?
March 19, 2010, 8:08 amDavid Schwartz says:
No, it doesn’t. That’s almost the definition of a heckler’s veto.
It makes no difference how any person, real or hypothetical, would or would not take the statement. What matters is, objectively, whether or not the statement is a sexual reference.
March 19, 2010, 12:44 pmSplitting Hairs says:
I think the following argument (about why not issuing the license plate supposedly doesn’t violate the First Amendment) fails under the Supreme Court’s Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) ruling, which makes clear that silencing certain subjects can be viewpoint discrimination, even if more than one viewpoint is silenced in the process:
So the inability to point to a license plate being issued with an oppposing, gay-bashing point of view should not be fatal to this plaintiff’s First Amendment challenge.
March 19, 2010, 12:47 pmJames says:
Why is the content vs. viewpoint discrimination distinction even relevant? Doesn’t even content discrimination have to be “reasonable” in even a limited public forum (like a license plate)?
So why wouldn’t it be impermissible to ban the “IMGAY” plate even if a gay-bashing point of view were also not permitted on a license plate — irrespective of the Supreme Court’s decision in the University of Virginia case?
Moreover, doesn’t the background about the Oklahoma judiciary and government cited by Hans Bader and kumquat suggest that the reasons for denying the license plate were pretextual and that a gay bashing point of view would have been permitted on the license plate — making it viewpoint discrimination, pure and simple?
March 19, 2010, 1:10 pmRandom Observer says:
I guess this is to be expected from Oklahoma, a reactionary bastion of the Republican Party, which has increasingly become the gay-bashing party.
March 19, 2010, 1:44 pmOrdinary Joe says:
Oklahoma has a Democratic governor and attorney general. So “Random Observer”‘s speculation turns out to be baseless. If anyone is gay bashing here, it is a Democratic administration.
March 19, 2010, 1:55 pmHans Bader says:
A commenter above says the case was dismissed. That surprises me, because I think there is a First Amendment violation here based on unfettered discretion regardless of whether the rejection was content vs. viewpoint-based.
I also agree with a commenter above that neither party has a monopoly on gay-bashing policies. Historically, politicians’ stances on gay rights varied more by region than by party. For example, a recent Mississippi democratic gubernatorial candidate, John Arthur Eaves, a trial lawyer, relied on religious appeals and “gay-bashing” in an effort to make inroads with voters in his failed bid to be elected governor. Conversely, the first gay-rights law to be signed into law on a state-wide basis (in Wisconsin) was signed into law by a Republican governor.
March 19, 2010, 2:51 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
License plate I saw back in Memphis:
2Q2BSTR8
…I realize the part about the risk of somebody shooting at a car with that bumper sticker was spoof. But if it weren’t, and that was the state’s reasoning, it would be more appropriate to ban the Rebel flag. As if that would ever happen, no matter how many people it offends.
March 21, 2010, 10:26 amMartha says:
Some years ago in Florida there was a flap over a guy’s “JEWBAN” plate. Someone interpreted it as being anti-Semitic and complained. The state DMV first revoked the plate, then changed its mind when it realized that the owner was proclaiming his status as a Cuban Jew.
March 21, 2010, 8:30 pmMatt says:
I believe what the state of Oklahoma is doing is a direct violation of his speech. Why is it that straight people get to marry and have custom plates and gay and bi people are the shit on the shoes? That doesn’t make sense, in fact it’s a bit like fascism in my opinion.
July 5, 2010, 3:34 amManPuppyMen says:
Such a shame “I’M GAY, I VOTE, AND I PAY TAXES” won’t fit on a license plate…
- ManPuppy Men
ManPuppy
August 10, 2010, 6:10 pmLatest park my license news – damnportlanders: Hi DP. says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “IM GAY” License Plate … [...]
August 30, 2010, 12:28 pm