http://jezebel.com/vanity-plates/
I came upon an article recently on my
favorite feminist blog Jezebel and subsequently researched it on the internet
and additional mention of it on the Daily News website. Recently, a Georgia man
submitted three requests to have a custom license plate with the word “gay”
included in a variety of ways. However, all three times he was denied permission
to the license plates because the messages were “not available”. However, the
man investigated into the incident and was informed that license plates are
banned which contain “language, a message, or
material considered to be obscene according to current community standards”.
The Department of Driver Services of Georgia has complete jurisdiction to
dictate whether a license plate is obscene and what “community standards” are,
and as the articles point out, it is rather arbitrary where “beerman” is approved
and “beerrun” is not.
This article and issue
remind me of our readings and discussion in class about the role the government
plays in defining and addressing a minority group of people, such as the role
of the government’s penitentiary system in defining African Americans identity.
As the author M. Alexander states, “today mass incarceration defines the
meaning of blackness in America (as) black people, especially black men, are
criminals” (Alexander, p. 197). A
license plate is an indicator of identity to the general public, as someone who
has a license plate which says “BOOKLVR” clearly wants to communicate to
society that they love books. By declining to approve a license plate with the
word “gay” on it (which of course has other meanings as well, not just
homosexual), the Georgia government is assigning the word “gay” as obscene and
therefore assigning that identity. From this example, it is clear that the word
“gay” is not permitted to be shown in public, and that the gay identity is not
appropriate to be demonstrated to the public. I understand the government’s
concern over putting obscene words on a license plate, because that could be
offensive and inappropriate, but the government should also understand the
difference between obscenity and a word that has been adopted to identify a
specific community.
Do you think that the
Georgia government is correct in banning the word “gay” from license plates? Is
there a better way for the government to regulate what is permissible on license
plates? Does this constitute discrimination against homosexuals?
You bring up several good questions, Lisa, on what constitutes as an appropriate word for a license plate, and when the government should intervene. While I respect, and understand, free speech, my initial reaction is that the word 'Gay' should be banned from a license plate. In today's culture, the word has so many negative connotations, and I don't think the government should condone the negative word association. Perhaps, someday, when there is equality for everybody, we can revisit the topic.
ReplyDeleteIn the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, (1779) Thomas Jefferson argues for religious freedom of course, but also perceives and applies the implications of Locke's argument for the freedom of speech: "… Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them." Like Locke, Jefferson recognizes that the officials of the State are equally fallible, and therefore no more qualified to force their opinions on others, than are private citizens: "Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere: the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe…"
ReplyDelete(in part read in The Political Philosophy of John Locke
and Its Influence on the Founding Fathers and the Political Documents They Created - ©1996 by Chuck Braman)
This news is really impressive since I cannot imagine that license plates have portrayed people’s identities in China. License plates are more likely tools of government’s or motor vehicle department’s regulation that cannot represent any personality and identity. But here, like it said: “GOTBEER is banned, but L0VWINE is okay. HVYGUNS is not allowed in Georgia, but 1BIGGUN is. HATERS is fine, but HATERS1? No way.” License plates have obviously personalized. And everything that has been personalized can be treated as an identity. I think Georgia government should really abandon this rule. If a country welcomes open minds, it should drop every hypocritical move. If a government allows people to announce their own characteristics in license plates, it should not separate gay identity from booklover, beerlover or gunlover. The government has already admitted the minor value that could stand together with the mainstream value, why still circumvented some specific aspects. It sounds very hypocritical to me.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, this news also reminds me of the story of Dr. Arthur, who got arrested for unwarranted accusation only because of his color. In my opinion, hierarchy is a history problem that cannot be overlooked, and more or less, it contributes to constructing the mainstream value. However, although the slogan US government always uses is “freedom and democracy”; although emphasizing the image of “melting pot” with diverse races, colors and hybrids, discrimination against colors still exists. How about just admit the history problem instead of insisting on no racism.
I understand the government’s need to prohibit obscene words on a state license place since it may be offensive or violates to the local community standard. But at the same time, I do believe Mr.Gilbert has his right to express his identity when there is no profanity, disparagement or hatefulness involved in the message he tries to send. And what about the approval of plates expressing some political or religious expressions like JESUS4U? So when should the government step in and prohibit “inappropriate” words on license plates? I am interested in knowing how this lawsuit would end.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very interesting topic and one that's hard for me to know which way to lean toward. On the one hand, I agree with Xizhu and Eki in that everyone should be able to express their identity especially when things like interests, religion, etc. are all allowed on license plates. Gay is not obscene to me in any way, shape or form. However, I also see Kristina's point and feel that if he were to have this on his license plate, there may be those out there that may see it and then act negatively toward him; they might key his car, yell at him profanely or try to taunt him on the road. These may impact him more negatively than if he didn't have the license plate at all.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a tricky question and I can see both sides. Maybe we should just do away with those personalized license plates all together. There are other ways to express our identity - maybe license plates should strictly be for car/insurance identity!!