The Nevada Department of Motor Vehicle refused William Junge's request for a personalized license plate that read HOE; the DMV reasoned that "HOE was slang for 'whore.'" (Junge said it was short for Tahoe, and part of his overall Tahoe theme for his car: "Although Junge would have preferred TAHOE for his plate message, he settled on HOE because his first choice was unavailable. For his plate background, Junge initially selected the Lake Tahoe panoramic setting to adorn his 1999 Chevy Tahoe.")
The Nevada Supreme Court, in DMV v. Junge, reversed the denial of the plate, but its reasoning goes beyond the surprisingly substantial but rather frivolous field of License Plate Law:
[B]y its own admission, DMV based its decision solely on the Urban Dictionary. Moreover, DMV revealed a policy of only consulting Urban Dictionary to determine if a word is inappropriate or offensive.
Urban Dictionary is predominantly an online dictionary, although a paper version based on the online content was published in 2005. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/book.php (last visited June 10, 2009). Its definitions are user contributed and are generally anonymous. There is no limit to the number of definitions that a user can contribute.
Since definitions are user contributed, they can be personal to the user and do not always reflect generally accepted definitions for words. See generally http://www.urbandictionary.com/tos.php (last visited June 10, 2009). In fact, Urban Dictionary acknowledges that "[i]ts content is frequently presented in a coarse and direct manner that some may find offensive." See http://www.urbandictionary.com/tos.php (last visited June 10, 2009). Moreover, Urban Dictionary readily admits that it "cannot control all [c]ontent posted by third parties to the [w]ebsite, and does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such [c]ontent." Id. Furthermore, Urban Dictionary concedes that it "does not and cannot review all [c]ontent posted to or created by users accessing the [w]ebsite." Id. Thus, Urban Dictionary allows, if not encourages, users to invent new words or attribute new, not generally accepted meanings to existing words.
We acknowledge that the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the use of [Jonathon] Green's Contemporary Dictionary of Slang (1985) to review personalized license plates in McMahon v. Iowa Dept. of Transp., 522 N.W.2d 51, 55-56 (Iowa 1994). Nonetheless, we conclude that this case is distinguishable because Urban Dictionary allows for anonymous, user contributed content. Moreover, without any review of the definitions posted on Urban Dictionary, there is a substantial danger that the definitions will not be generally accepted. Therefore, the DMV's practice risks prohibiting words or phrases based on meanings that are not commonly known or recognized, even as slang terms.
An interesting — and, I think, correct — conclusion, and one that's relevant to other user-generated references such as Wikipedia. As I've noted before, for tangential and uncontroversial matters, Wikipedia may be quite good enough. Government employees' time isn't unlimited, and tracking down authoritative sources to demonstrate the colorfulness of Polish boxer Andrew Golota — to give an example from a Seventh Circuit case that cited Wikipedia to support such an assertion — is probably not the best ways to spend that time. But for something controversial and important, it seems to me that Wikipedia and other reader-generated sources that aren't edited by known and trustworthy authorities should not suffice.
Note that I'm not concerned here about outright lies and manipulations. It seems likely that people who contribute to the Urban Dictionary contribute usages that they themselves have observed. And in fact it's possible that "hoe" (and not just "ho") is seen by some or even many people as slang for "whore," unless some other meaning — say, gardening-related — is visible from context. But all the entry in the Urban Dictionary means (unless the court and I misunderstood the way the Dictionary works) is that one person has claimed that a word has a particular slang meaning, and that the site operators didn't block or remove the submission; it doesn't mean that anyone checked to see whether the definition is in fact common, rare, or even purely idiosyncratic with the submitter and his small circle of friends.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Nevada Supreme Court on Reference Works with Reader-Generated (and Largely Unedited) Content:
- Wikipedia Articles Not Subject to Judicial Notice:
- More Wikipedia Law,
- Wikipedia Law:
- More Wikipedia Law:
- Questionable Use of Wikipedia by the Seventh Circuit?
- Wikipedia and Student Law Review Articles:
- Wikipedia, Law Review Citations, and the Passive Voice:
(There are some reasonable entries, but they're buried in the back.)
Then customers who are offended by a company that issues a plate that says "HOE" could simply choose not to do business with that company. And instead of the old joke about the cop trying to draw the little cowboy when ticketing a Wyoming car, the cop would have to draw Snoopy or the Geico gecko instead.
I'd like to see that extended to the actual licensing of drivers. I bet insurance companies would do a better job of both testing drivers and being friendly about it.
I do have a problem, however, with some limits (objecting to some four-letter words I can see...) on plates even based on "valid" dictionary definitions. Let's say "HO" was objectionable - until you find out that's the person's name. "HOOKER" similarly. Is one to only be allowed a problematic license plate if you can prove a legitimate purpose? I can understand on one level, on another, if e.g. "HOOKER" is offensive, it's no less offensive to other drivers who merely see the plate and don't know the driver.
In another context, I recently came across an academic reference to someone with the last name "Kundt". Is only someone who can prove a "legitimate" interest entitled to that plate, or do you prohibit it to everyone?
I don't have an answer, I would think that an argument based on traffic safety, possible road rage, distraction to other drivers, would justify content-specific limits even with strict scrutiny - but then the person is presumably free to stick on "offensive" bumper stickers saying the same thing...the above example, "I'm a Kundt" springs to mind!
And you forgot to mention that standards of driver education pretty much couldn't be lower anyway, from my experience in (mainly) DC, Virgina and California :)
Unless of course a personalized license plate is fundamental right, which would make sense in California, but not so much in Nevada.
That is correct. This is an unpublished decision. In fact, the link EV supplied is to the ACLU of Nevada's website and not the Nevada Supreme Court's.
A printed work with an editor and research staff is inherently limited by the reach of that staff and their methods of research. The unedited, online source would have the better reach, into areas and subcultures that the more organized research staffs have not yet discovered. Even though it is anonymous, someone thought an entry in the online source was an offensive word. If the objective is to keep untoward words, or hints of those words off license plates, the online source would be the better reference.
The problem isn't the use of one source or another, the problem is the reliance on any source without judgment or other evaluation.
I seem to recall that exact situation arising here in WA, way back in the pre-web era: the local plant manager of the (then) Hooker Chemical plant was denied the use of HOOKER on a vanity plate. I don't remember if the state relented or not.
Which kind of supports the Urban Dictionary's usage--or maybe not, if you interpret the cartoon as an uncool white teenager with no real knowledge of urban vocabulary.
It really depends on what you're looking for, though. If I want an overview of viewpoints on a subject, I often find Wikipedia better than authoritative sources, because authors of books and journal articles are not always very good about charitably summarizing, or even mentioning at all, contrary views (or criticisms of their approach). On the other hand, if you already know which viewpoint you're interested in, an article or book by one of its foremost exponents would indeed be a better place to go than Wikipedia.
As a former employee of a legal publishing company, I have no hesitation in advocating official publication here. I wonder whether the Nevada Supreme Court has a method for recommending that unpublished decisions be published.
Well, seems kinda wastefull spending a lot of money preventing someone from putting something on their license plate that they can just put next to it.
And aren't they creating a public forum?
Hmm, my driver education classroom was in the staff lounge of Kann's, a department store in Arlington, Virginia. It was an excellent class, maybe the best ever from that building.
;-)
I don't think this comment has gotten enough attention.
The Court writes: "Since definitions are user contributed, they can be personal to the user and do not always reflect generally accepted definitions for words."
But the voting mechanism shows this to be incorrect - if a particular definition does reflect a "generally accepted" definition, it will have a lot of positive votes and relatively few negative votes.
In the case of the Urban Dictionary definition of the word "hoe" [I would link, but apparently the VC software doesn't allow it], the first definition (of several), which pertains to the vulgar reference the DMV was worried about, has 3363 positive votes and only 937 negative votes. This mitigates the problem the court identified: "without any review of the definitions posted on Urban Dictionary, there is a substantial danger that the definitions will not be generally accepted". There IS, in fact, review of the definitions posted on Urban Dictionary, by the users themselves. An appropriate understanding and use of this review mechanism by DMV workers would lessen the danger that the DMV would use posted definitions that are not generally accepted.
Accordingly, I don't think the Court's opinion is well informed or persuasive.
Nick
For those who don't know, the Kann's department store building now houses the George Mason University School of Law. What are you saying John?
Hmmmm. I got an error message when I tried to post, and blamed it on the link. I must have screwed up in some other way. Thanks.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.