Today a narrow and unusual Supreme Court majority ruled that the DMV — of all government agencies! — is allowed to censor speech it considers to be “offensive.” To wit, the four “liberal” justices and Justice Clarence Thomas somehow found that the specialty license plates Texas drivers can choose to have on their vehicles actually constitute state speech — and of course the state can control its own messages, including rejecting a plate proposed by the Texas branch of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. This is so even though the specialty‐license‐plate program encourages Texans to come up with their own designs and slogans, which has resulted in around 400 plates that express support for a plethora of nonprofit organizations, commercial entities, affinity groups, and myriad other causes.
By this logic, Texas has long been endorsing Dr. Pepper, ReMax, and an assortment of burger and taco joints. Indeed, both Longhorns (UT‐Austin) and Aggies (Texas A&M) will be dismayed to learn that the Lone Star State cheers for the Sooners (University of Oklahoma) and Cowboys (Oklahoma State). Surely at least one person is “offended” by each of the above examples, yet the DMV has refused to act in the face of such (macro)aggression. As the dissenting justices point out, it’s even more bizarre that, under the majority’s reading, “rather be golfing” is official state policy. It’s a wonder that the state has become America’s engine of economic growth!
To add hypocrisy to insult, the author of today’s decision, Justice Stephen Breyer, contradicted his own writing in the key recent precedent, a case regarding monuments in a city park. In the 2009 case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, Breyer concurred in the Court’s opinion “on the understanding that the ‘government speech’ doctrine is a rule of thumb, not a rigid category. Were the City to discriminate in the selection of permanent monuments on grounds unrelated to the display’s theme, say solely on political grounds, its action might well violate the First Amendment.”
Indeed. The ruling in Walker v. Texas Division represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on here. Texas doesn’t have to have specialty license plates, but if it creates this money‐making program, it can’t then censor speech it simply doesn’t like.
As Cato wrote in our amicus brief, one man’s offensive speech is another’s exercise of social commentary or personal expression. And unlike, say, child pornography and “fighting words,” “offensive” speech is protected by the First Amendment.
It’s the Supreme Court that has offended the freedom of speech today. And now we know that the First Amendment is one thing that’s smaller in Texas.
