Over the weekend I suggested that, the state DMV might have sufficient legal grounds for recalling Heather Morijah's "MPEACHW" license plate. Fortunately, the DMV and 8th Circuit case law have proved me wrong! Yesterday, the state offered a terse press release in which Secretary Paul Kinsman of the Department of Revenue and Regulation reversed the earlier order that Morijah (this new spelling appears in the state press release and Kevin Woster's update on Morijah's victory in the Rapid City Journal). Evidently someone in Pierre did some legal research over the weekend and found that the 8th Circuit Court ruled in Lewis v. Wilson that the state of Missouri had to reissue a recalled vanity plate that read "ARYAN-1".
Ugh. I'm not exactly happy to have Klan sympathizers setting the legal precedent that protects Morijah's free speech. But such is the nature of the fight for free speech. The First Amendment exists to protect speech of all stripes, liberal and conservative, red and redneck, racy and racist. We can offer our own retorts to those who express unpopular views, but we can't ask the state to strongarm into silence those who offend us.
[Read Lewis v Wilson, 253 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 2001) courtesy Findlaw. Read more on vanity plates and free speech at the First Amendment Center.]
We need to respect contrarian thinking in this country again. After all, those who think outside the norm are the root of all change in our society. He or she who pushes the envelope of acceptability can make us uncomfortable, but if it weren't for contrarian views and ideas, no change would occur.
ReplyDeleteHear, hear, Anon! That's why the Founding Fathers put free speech in the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI think she should keep the license plate, even though I don't agree with her opinion.
ReplyDeleteBut it seems that the liberals are the ones who demand the right of free speech, while at the same time being the ones most upset about free speech that contradicts their beliefs.
Nonnie, come now -- a claim with no examples? The case at hand is an example of someone of a conservative bent actualy protesting to the state about a liberal's free speech. Our own conservative state keeps an unconstitutional ban on flag-burning on the books, and John Thune would amend the constitution to ban that form of speech. Conservatives are as prone to twisted knickers over free speech as liberals... but I wonder: has anyone quantified the free-speech challenges brought by members of various political persuasions or parties?
ReplyDeleteI have never supported an amendment to ban flag burning, even though I'm a member of the American Legion and they support this. I think it's a waste of time when we have so many more pressing issues, and really how many people burn a flag anyway? It's not right, but it's not a major issue either.
ReplyDeleteExample of hypocrisy on the libs part regarding free speech:
Trent Lott was attacked for comments he made and forced to resign. Byrd was not, and is even a former Klan member,for pete's sake. If Byrd were a Rep, he'd be gone!
Not saying Reps are all good and Dems all bad, but there does seem to be a double standard at times.
I'll buy that example, Nonnie! Democrats made all sorts of hay over the powerful GOP senator's comment, while they go to great lengths to ignore Senator Byrd's erstwhile memership in an actively racist organization (and also gave Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt when she made a much more clearly racist comment... and also give Senator Clinton a pass now when she accepts $800K raised at an event featuring a rapper who regularly uses sexist d racist language).
ReplyDeleteThe Lott example may not be a perfect analogy to the license-plate free-speech question, though, since Lott's removal as majority leader came not through an exercise of state power but through machinations within political parties. And his free speech -- one vague sentence in honor of Strom Thurmond on the senior senator's 100th birthday -- was really just a pretext for manuevers in a political power struggle that may have been orchestrated by the Republican administration. Both big parties often seem interested in issues of free speech and fairness only when it suits their political interests.