Comments on: Cato brief: the value of speech that may offend

By: Bill H

Bill H — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 02:38:19 +0000

Ahhhhhh but the businesses don’t have the right to refuse service because they find it offensive or distasteful. So how is the state any different?

I don’t think that has been settled yet with any finality, KB. Anyway, how do YOU feel about it?

Why is the state in the specialty license place business?

Simple: it’s a fantastic way to make a lot of money very cheaply. The state spends almost no more money on personalized plates than it does on standard plates. If people are willing to pay the premium, the state is going to do that.

I’ve always sincerely believed that the California DMV was the state’s biggest money maker. With the number of ways to “express yourself” on a plate here, the program is a license to print money.

By: fred

fred — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:42:21 +0000

Why is the state in the specialty license place business? If citizens want to decorate their vehicles with stickers, magnets, slogans, bible quotes, wicca symbols,etc.,let ’em do it without state sponsorship. License plates are there to identify vehicles, period. It’s called limited government.

By: KB

KB — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:12:31 +0000

Ahhhhhh but the businesses don’t have the right to refuse service because they find it offensive or distasteful. So how is the state any different?

By: Bill H

Bill H — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 18:33:16 +0000

I can see where the case could be made for the free speech aspect. But, the plate is issued by the state, is is identified to the state, and is attached to a privilege, not a right.

It seems to me to be the reverse of the wedding cake and photographer quandary. The state shouldn’t be compelled to stamp a plate it finds offensive or distasteful. Think about it a bit: if businesses run by people have rights, so do states. Absolutely nothing at all stops the plaintiff from displaying his taste (or lack of) anywhere else on his car, including the plate frame.