Like many states, North Carolina allows different groups to promote their view of the world by developing their own specialty license plate, thereby getting their message out and, through specialty plate fees, raising money for a favored charity. We have this program in Pennsylvania, where one sees many university-themed plates (Edinboro alumni, for example). In North Carolina, approximately 150 specialty plates have been authorized.
North Carolina legislators wanted to allow pro-life groups to use the specialty plate program to 'promote life'-- but not allow pro-choice groups the opportunity to promote their views. In opening up the specialty license plate program to pro-life groups, the North Carolina government explicitly banned pro-choice plates or the use of specialty plate fees for any pro-choice organization or activity.
For this reason, federal District Court judge James C. Fox placed a permanent injunction on the "Choose Life" plate program.
The First Amendment issues here are interesting. Like many free speech cases, this one comes down to how one frames the government's behavior.
The ACLU, and the ruling judge, framed the case as North Carolina promoting the speech of pro-life citizens while suppressing the speech of pro-choice citizens. The problem in this case is not that North Carolina allowed for a "Choose Life" license plate, per se. Instead, problem was that people who were pro-choice were explicitly prohibited from creating their own speciality license plate. The state, then, allowed some people with a particular viewpoint to use the public medium of the license plate to express their political views while denying others the opportunity to do the same.
One could analogize this to having a publicly-owned concert space and allowing some acts to perform while banning others (like Marilyn Manson or Lady Gaga) because they are 'inappropriate.' Courts clearly do not allow governments to selectively approve use of a public space based on the views of the potential speakers.
When the government opens up space that it controls to citizen speech, wild things can happen-- fringe viewpoints can be expressed, and people can be deeply irritated or offended by the views of others. But this is what happens in a democratic and free society, and, as responsible and critical self-governing adults, we are expected to take the good with the bad-- in fact, determine for ourselves what is good and what is bad, without government interference. In creating a specialty license plate program, so that private groups could express their personal views on their license plates and raise money for private charities, North Carolina must allow everyone an equal opportunity to use the medium. If North Carolina does not want pro-choice specialty license plates, it should not have authorized pro-life license plates.
Now, the alternative framing of the issue is that the "Choose Life" license plate program is the government of the State of North Carolina speaking for itself. Governments are allowed to promote their own viewpoint as a reflection of the views of the (majority of the) population. So North Carolina, qua North Carolina, can divert money to pregnancy care centers, and abstinence-only sex education programs, and say loud and clear that the official state position is that life begins at conception and that abortion is morally wrong-- so long as it does not prevent women from exercising their 14th Amendment right to terminate a pregnancy.
North Carolina asserted that the license plate program is not a form of "private" speech but rather government speech in the guise of a license plate program. When the government speaks for itself, it is not required to give equal time to alternative viewpoints.
The court rejected this position because of the overall structure of the current license plate program. The program does not exist solely or primarily to promote the state's view of life issues. Instead, it is a program designed to allow for a range of views on many issues, political and non-political, on a special kind of public bulletin board-- the automobile license plate. It is, in other words, a forum for private speech, not a program that exists solely to promote the singular view of North Carolina. Therefore, while the North Carolina government has a clear viewpoint on abortion, it is using its power to selectively grant access to a public forum for citizen speech to promote its views-- and that is impermissible.
While the court decision may be an irritant to pro-life advocates, it does not mean that the government of North Carolina has to get out of the business of promoting pro-life views. It just has to structure its efforts differently.
Links:
United States District Court opinion (December 7, 2012): American Civil Liberties Union v. Conti, No. 5:11-CV-470-F (E.D.N.C. 2012)
Article in USA Today (December 10, 2012): U.S. judge bans N.C. 'Choose Life' license plate
Article in LifeSiteNews.com (December 10, 2012): Judge: NC Choose Life Plates Invalid Because No Pro-Abortion Version
North Carolina legislators wanted to allow pro-life groups to use the specialty plate program to 'promote life'-- but not allow pro-choice groups the opportunity to promote their views. In opening up the specialty license plate program to pro-life groups, the North Carolina government explicitly banned pro-choice plates or the use of specialty plate fees for any pro-choice organization or activity.
For this reason, federal District Court judge James C. Fox placed a permanent injunction on the "Choose Life" plate program.
The First Amendment issues here are interesting. Like many free speech cases, this one comes down to how one frames the government's behavior.
The ACLU, and the ruling judge, framed the case as North Carolina promoting the speech of pro-life citizens while suppressing the speech of pro-choice citizens. The problem in this case is not that North Carolina allowed for a "Choose Life" license plate, per se. Instead, problem was that people who were pro-choice were explicitly prohibited from creating their own speciality license plate. The state, then, allowed some people with a particular viewpoint to use the public medium of the license plate to express their political views while denying others the opportunity to do the same.
One could analogize this to having a publicly-owned concert space and allowing some acts to perform while banning others (like Marilyn Manson or Lady Gaga) because they are 'inappropriate.' Courts clearly do not allow governments to selectively approve use of a public space based on the views of the potential speakers.
When the government opens up space that it controls to citizen speech, wild things can happen-- fringe viewpoints can be expressed, and people can be deeply irritated or offended by the views of others. But this is what happens in a democratic and free society, and, as responsible and critical self-governing adults, we are expected to take the good with the bad-- in fact, determine for ourselves what is good and what is bad, without government interference. In creating a specialty license plate program, so that private groups could express their personal views on their license plates and raise money for private charities, North Carolina must allow everyone an equal opportunity to use the medium. If North Carolina does not want pro-choice specialty license plates, it should not have authorized pro-life license plates.
Now, the alternative framing of the issue is that the "Choose Life" license plate program is the government of the State of North Carolina speaking for itself. Governments are allowed to promote their own viewpoint as a reflection of the views of the (majority of the) population. So North Carolina, qua North Carolina, can divert money to pregnancy care centers, and abstinence-only sex education programs, and say loud and clear that the official state position is that life begins at conception and that abortion is morally wrong-- so long as it does not prevent women from exercising their 14th Amendment right to terminate a pregnancy.
North Carolina asserted that the license plate program is not a form of "private" speech but rather government speech in the guise of a license plate program. When the government speaks for itself, it is not required to give equal time to alternative viewpoints.
The court rejected this position because of the overall structure of the current license plate program. The program does not exist solely or primarily to promote the state's view of life issues. Instead, it is a program designed to allow for a range of views on many issues, political and non-political, on a special kind of public bulletin board-- the automobile license plate. It is, in other words, a forum for private speech, not a program that exists solely to promote the singular view of North Carolina. Therefore, while the North Carolina government has a clear viewpoint on abortion, it is using its power to selectively grant access to a public forum for citizen speech to promote its views-- and that is impermissible.
While the court decision may be an irritant to pro-life advocates, it does not mean that the government of North Carolina has to get out of the business of promoting pro-life views. It just has to structure its efforts differently.
Links:
United States District Court opinion (December 7, 2012): American Civil Liberties Union v. Conti, No. 5:11-CV-470-F (E.D.N.C. 2012)
Article in USA Today (December 10, 2012): U.S. judge bans N.C. 'Choose Life' license plate
Article in LifeSiteNews.com (December 10, 2012): Judge: NC Choose Life Plates Invalid Because No Pro-Abortion Version
Comments