Back in 2015 some folks in my adopted state of Florida wanted three Confederate veterans to become members of the Veterans’ Hall of Fame. Despite the efforts of the Florida Sons of Confederate Veterans, the initial attempt failed on the grounds that the Confederate veterans were not United States’ veterans. Not to be outdone, the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans wanted an official Texas license plate featuring the Confederate battle flag. While custom license plates are allowed in the United States, states review proposed plates. The Texas department of Motor Vehicles rejected the proposed plate on the grounds that “a significant portion of the public associate[s] the Confederate flag with organizations” expressing hatred for minorities. Those proposing the plate claim that this violates their rights. The case reached the Supreme Court, and the court sided with the state of Texas. But as the Trump regime is Confederate friendly, it would not be surprising if there are new proposals for such license plates.
The legal issue, which was presented as a battle over free speech, was interesting. However, my main concern is with the ethics of the matter since I am not a lawyer.
One way to look at a state approved license plate is that it is a means of conveying a message the state agrees with. Those opposed to the plate argued that if the state were forced to allow the plate to be issued, the state will be compelled to be associated with a message. In free speech terms, this is forcing the state to express or facilitate a view it does not want to publicly accept.
This has some appeal as the state can be seen as representing the people. If a view is significantly offensive to a significant number of citizens (which is, I admit, vague), then the state could reasonably decline to accept a license plate expressing or associated with that view. So, to give some examples, the state could justly decline Nazi plates, pornographic plates, Stalin plates, and plates featuring racist or sexist images. Given that the Confederate flag represents slavery and racism, it seems reasonable to decline the plate. But citizens can still cover their cars in Confederate flags and thus express their views. As such, not having an official state plate does not interfere with free expression, anymore than not having an official state plate advertising a business would deny that business its free expression.
But the plate can be defended using the right of free expression: citizens should have the right to express their views via license plates. These plates, one might contend, do not express the views of the state since they express the view of the person using the plate.
In response to concerns about a plate being offensive, Granvel Block argued that not allowing a plate with the Confederate flag would be “as unreasonable” as the state forbidding the use of the University of Texas logo on a plate “because Texas A&M graduates didn’t care for it.” On the one hand, Block has made a reasonable point: if people disliking an image is a legitimate basis for forbidding its use on a plate, then any image could end up forbidden. It would, as Block noted, be absurd to forbid schools from having custom plates because rival schools do not like them.
On the other hand, there is a relevant difference between the logo of a public university and the battle flag of the Confederacy. While some Texas A&M graduates might not like the University of Texas, the University of Texas’ logo does not represent states that rebelled against the United States to defend slavery. So, while the state should not forbid plates merely because some people do not like them, it is reasonable to forbid a plate that includes the flag representing, as state Senator Royce West said, “…a legalized system of involuntary servitude, dehumanization, rape, mass murder…”
The lawyer representing the Sons of Confederate Veterans, R. James George Jr., presented an interesting line of reasoning. He notes, correctly, that Texas has a state holiday that honors veterans of the Confederacy, that there are monuments honoring Confederate veterans and that the gift shop in the capitol sells Confederate memorabilia. From this he infers that the Department of Motor Vehicles should follow the lead of the state legislature and approve the plate.
This argument, which is an appeal to consistency, has some weight. After all, the state seems to express its support for Confederate veterans (and the Confederacy) and this license plate is consistent with this support. To refuse the license plate on the grounds that the state does not wish to express support for what the Confederate flag stands for is inconsistent with having a state holiday for Confederate veterans as the state seems comfortable with this association. This is on par with arguing that if a state had a holiday devoted to pornography, monuments to porn stars and sold pornography in the capitol, then a pornographic license plate would be fine. Which is certainly reasonable.
There is, of course, the broader moral issue of whether the state should have a state holiday for Confederate veterans, etc. That said, any arguments given in support of what the state already does in regard to the Confederacy also support the acceptance of the plate as they are linked. So, if the plate is to be rejected, these other practices should also be rejected on the same grounds. But, if these other practices are maintained, then the plate would fit and thus, on this condition, should also be accepted just as a pornographic license plate should be accepted in a state that honors porn.
Since I favor freedom of expression, it makes since that any license plate design that does not interfere with identifying the license number and state should be allowed. This would be consistent and would not require the state to make any political or value judgments. It would, of course, need to be made clear that the plates do not necessarily express the official positions of the government.
The obvious problem is that people would create horrible plates featuring pornography, racism, sexism, and so on. This could be addressed by appealing to existing laws. The state would not approve or reject a plate as such, but a plate could be rejected for violating, for example, laws against making threats or inciting violence. The obvious worry is that laws would then be passed to restrict plates that some people did not like, such as plates endorsing atheism or claiming that climate change is real. But this is not a problem unique to license plates. After all, it has been alleged that officials in my adopted state of Florida have banned the use of the term ‘climate change.’
A way to avoid all controversy is by getting rid of custom plates. Each state might have a neutral, approved image (such as a loon, orange or road runner) or the plates might simply have the number/letters and the state name. This would be consistent as no one gets a custom plate. But I always just get the cheapest license plate option, which is the default state plate. However, some people see their license plate as a means of expression and their view is worth considering.