Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, April 21, 1991 TAG: 9104220265
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: B-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Margie Fisher
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
A few weeks ago, it set tongues clacking when employees' displays of yellow ribbons and other symbols of support for U.S. troops during Operation Desert Storm were banned from its offices. Many saw it as an infringement on freedom of speech and expression - and Gov. Wilder quickly overruled DMV officials.
Now the DMV is in another First Amendment quandary. This one involves a request from Arnold Via of Grottoes for a personalized license plate spelling out "ATHEIST." As of midweek, the DMV was trying to decide. Either way, it's sure to make somebody mad.
This is not the first time the agency has gone down this road with Mr. Via. In 1982, a plate spelling "ATHEST" (at the time, the plates had a six-letter maximum) was issued to him. It was revoked after one citizen complained.
Via sued DMV, but the Virginia Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling in support of state policy prohibiting license-plate messages that are vulgar or drug-related, make ethnic slurs, or refer to a deity.
Arguing that the state had created a public forum for expression when DMV got into the CommuniPlate business, Via claimed DMV was violating his constitutional rights by dictating what he could not say. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal.
But that was then, this is now. The courts have said it's OK to burn the American flag as an expression of disagreement with national politics. They've upheld 2 Live Crew's right to sing and tape smutty lyrics that shock and offend many Americans. Who knows what the U.S. Supreme Court might now say, if the matter should go that far, about Via's right to say "ATHEIST" on his license plate?
An any rate, the issue raises some interesting questions. In January 1989, a Hampton man was convicted of disturbing the peace because his car had an explicit bumper sticker saying "Don't like my driving? Dial 1-800-EAT ----." Citizens' complaints about nasty bumper stickers triggered a storm of bills at the General Assembly to outlaw them in Virginia - and to outlaw T-shirts with dirty messages, too.
The bills, of course, were killed on First Amendment grounds - as they should have been. But it's hard to see any consistency in state policy that permits a bumper sticker saying "S--- happens" but not a license plate saying TIH2HA - which seen through a rearview mirror . . . . (Like "ATHEST," the TIH2HA plate was once issued by the DMV but recalled.)
Technically, it can be argued, the state owns license plates, no matter how licensees personalize their messages. But the First Amendment does not equivocate over technicalities. It says government "shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
So to my mind, the DMV policy of vetoing messages that DMV considers licentious, or hypes for religion, or whatever, does not exactly square with the First - even though I agree with the policy.
Yes, I said I agree with the policy. In my own ambivalent way.
Many license plates and bumper stickers are clever and amusing; reading them breaks the monotony of a traffic jam. But it troubles me when people use their cars as billboards to spew obscenity, hatred and rotten taste.
A Roanoke minister tells of driving behind a woman he knew to be the mother of two small children, a mother who bragged she washed out her youngsters' mouths with soap if they sassed her or used a four-letter word. But her car had one of those "S--- happens" slogans.
I've been among those who pontificated on the 2 Live Crew case and other obscenity flaps, where nobody had been forced to buy and listen to tapes with scandalous lyrics, or read pornographic books, or watch X-rated movies. You don't like the message, you don't kill the messenger. You simply stay away from it.
But I sympathize with those who complain that's easier said than done. Closing your eyes while driving, to avoid a vulgar bumper-sticker message, is not recommended.
Let me also stress that I'm as bothered by those in the "Honk if you love Jesus" vein as by those that are lewd and putrid. (I doubt that many find salvation by tailgating a "Let the Son shine in" or "Jesus Saves" sticker.)
At the same time, however, I thought the DMV was wrong last year when it revoked (again, based on one citizen's complaint) a Newport News woman's license plate that spelled "MESSIAH" backward. I think it will be wrong if it rejects Via's request for "ATHEIST."
"Since the plates are state-owned," said state Sen. Robert Scott of Newport News in defense of revocation of the "MESSIAH" plate, "`it would mean the state was endorsing a religion" if it allowed the woman to keep her plate.
So if the DMV rejects "ATHEIST," which most agree is anti-deity and anti-religion, is the state effectively embracing religion in an upside-down way? Will churchy folks charge a violation of the principle of separation of church and state at the same time atheists charge violation of freedom of speech? Poor ol' DMV.
The bottom line for me is that I earnestly believe in the First Amendment. It is not there just to protect messages and expressions of thought with which I happen to agree. It is there to protect the freedom and right to say the unsavory, the impolite, the indecent and the sacrilegious. It matters not if I agree with what is said.
So that means I have to defend dirty bumper stickers and personalized license plates - whether I like 'em or not.
by CNB