A New Hampshire man who was denied the vanity license plate COPSLIE because it was insulting to police is having his case taken to the state's Supreme Court. The man, who changed his name from David Montenegro to "human," argues that the plate doesn't violate any of the New Hampshire DMV's regulations.
"The Division of Motor Vehicles has a regulations which prohibits vanity license plates containing messages which the DMV believes a reasonable person would find offensive to good taste. That regulation does not meet constitutional standards," human said. Human applied for the plate in 2010, but was given an alternate choice, GR8GOVT, instead.
The DMV is represented by the state's Associate Attorney General Richard Head, who told Reuters, "The primary purpose of a plate is to identify motor vehicles, not to engage in public debate."
The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union doesn't see it that way, though, arguing that the DMV's position is "unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and viewpoint discriminatory," according to court filings obtained by Reuters. And while it does sound like this is a case of someone simply exercising his First Amendment rights, we're left wondering if driving around with a license plate calling people with guns and ticket books liars won't draw the wrong type of attention to your cause.
Have your say about the issue down in Comments. Is human right, or is his plate really that inappropriate?
"The Division of Motor Vehicles has a regulations which prohibits vanity license plates containing messages which the DMV believes a reasonable person would find offensive to good taste. That regulation does not meet constitutional standards," human said. Human applied for the plate in 2010, but was given an alternate choice, GR8GOVT, instead.
The DMV is represented by the state's Associate Attorney General Richard Head, who told Reuters, "The primary purpose of a plate is to identify motor vehicles, not to engage in public debate."
The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union doesn't see it that way, though, arguing that the DMV's position is "unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and viewpoint discriminatory," according to court filings obtained by Reuters. And while it does sound like this is a case of someone simply exercising his First Amendment rights, we're left wondering if driving around with a license plate calling people with guns and ticket books liars won't draw the wrong type of attention to your cause.
Have your say about the issue down in Comments. Is human right, or is his plate really that inappropriate?
Sign in to post
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Continue