A 1969 New Hampshire statute made it unlawful to obscure the state
motto on the license plates of noncommercial vehicles. This law was
invalidated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1977. The
Court ruled that New Hampshire could not compel citizens to display
the state motto, "Live Free or Die," on their license plates. The
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ranks this landmark decision as
one of their "100 Greatest Hits":
"1977
Wooley v. Maynard
A New Hampshire law that prohibited a Jehovah?s Witness from covering
up the license plate slogan 'Live Free or Die' was invalidated by the
Court as a denial of the "right not to speak."
ACLU San Diego: ACLU 100 Greatest Hits
http://www.aclusandiego.org/100_greatest_hits/
"The United State Supreme Court held that New Hampshire violated the
First Amendment rights of objecting drivers when it required them to
display the state motto 'Live Free or Die' on their license plates.
(Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)). This decision has been cited
hundreds of times for the position that a license plate is a means of
expressing speech."
Keeping an Eye on Your Tail End
The Continuing Controversy Over Specialty License Plates
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/first_amendment_cases/specialty_license_plates.htm
"In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that New Hampshire could not
constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon
their vehicle license plates. The Court found that the statute in
question effectively required individuals to 'use their private
property as a 'mobile billboard' for the State's ideological message.'
The Court held that the State's interests in requiring the motto did
not outweigh free speech principles under the First Amendment."
Oyez: Wooley v. Maynard
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/453/
"Robert D. Richards, a law professor at the University of
Pennsylvania, says: 'Wooley v. Maynard expanded the broad First
Amendment ?right to refrain? from speaking - a notion articulated
earlier in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. After Wooley,
it was clear that government cannot compel citizens to profess
allegiance to a particular viewpoint or even passively display it on a
license plate. The case is an important piece in the line of cases
dealing with compelled speech because of this expansion.'
Robert O?Neil, founder of the Virginia-based Thomas Jefferson Center
for the Protection of Free Expression, agrees that the decision has
had lasting importance in First Amendment jurisprudence. 'The Maynard
Court solidly affirmed the basic right not to be compelled to speak,
at least with respect to an abhorrent message or viewpoint, and the
judgment has been largely followed ever since - in the realm of union
dues, integrated state bar membership, and most recently collective
advertising,' O?Neil says."
Freedom Forum: George Maynard recalls license-plate ordeal, free-speech victory
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15440
Here you can read the opinion of the court and the dissenting opinion:
WOOLEY, CHIEF OF POLICE OF LEBANON, ET AL. v. MAYNARD
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wooley.html
Google search strategy:
Google Web Search: "new hampshire" + "display the state motto"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22new+hampshire%22+%22display+the+state+motto
I hope this is helpful. Please keep in mind that Google Answers is not
a source of authoritative legal advice; the material I've posted above
is for informational purposes, and should not be viewed as a
substitute for the services of a qualified legal professional.
If anything is unclear, or if a link does not work for you, please
request clarification; I'll be glad to offer further assistance before
you rate my answer.
Best regards,
pinkfreud |
,
0 Comments
)