III. Current Law
The use of license plates as compelled speech became an issue in 1977 with the case of Wooley v. Maynard. The Supreme Court of the United States set precedent that the State of New Hampshire could not force its citizens to display the state motto, “Life Free or Die,” on their license plate, if the motto goes against their religious or moral beliefs. The Court noted that this case does not turn on whether a reasonable person would agree with the state motto, rather it turns on the fact that individuals with a different point of view from the majority, whom are protected by the First Amendment, must use their private property as a “mobile billboard” for the State’s explicitly stated ideological message. The interests of those protected by the First Amendment had to be balanced against the State’s interests of “(1) facilitat[ing] the identification of passenger vehicles, and (2) promot[ing] appreciating of history, individualism, and state pride.” However, it is important to note that because the motto is written, it is considered “pure” speech as opposed to “symbolic” speech, which can warrant different First Amendment protections. Therefore, the Court found that the appellants would have been compelled to speak a motto …show more content…
Johnson, the Court reiterated what forms of “speech” fell under the protections of the First Amendment. It was here the Court determined, that while protection does not end at the spoken word, it also does not extend to a “limitless variety of conduct.” The expressive conduct must be “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” In Johnson’s case, the burning of the American flag in protest of the political climate was expressive conduct, and therefore protected by the First Amendment because he had “an intent to convey a particularized message . . . and [ ] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed
The use of license plates as compelled speech became an issue in 1977 with the case of Wooley v. Maynard. The Supreme Court of the United States set precedent that the State of New Hampshire could not force its citizens to display the state motto, “Life Free or Die,” on their license plate, if the motto goes against their religious or moral beliefs. The Court noted that this case does not turn on whether a reasonable person would agree with the state motto, rather it turns on the fact that individuals with a different point of view from the majority, whom are protected by the First Amendment, must use their private property as a “mobile billboard” for the State’s explicitly stated ideological message. The interests of those protected by the First Amendment had to be balanced against the State’s interests of “(1) facilitat[ing] the identification of passenger vehicles, and (2) promot[ing] appreciating of history, individualism, and state pride.” However, it is important to note that because the motto is written, it is considered “pure” speech as opposed to “symbolic” speech, which can warrant different First Amendment protections. Therefore, the Court found that the appellants would have been compelled to speak a motto …show more content…
Johnson, the Court reiterated what forms of “speech” fell under the protections of the First Amendment. It was here the Court determined, that while protection does not end at the spoken word, it also does not extend to a “limitless variety of conduct.” The expressive conduct must be “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” In Johnson’s case, the burning of the American flag in protest of the political climate was expressive conduct, and therefore protected by the First Amendment because he had “an intent to convey a particularized message . . . and [ ] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed