OT - Vietnam Vet Denied?

[Footslogger]

This article is about a Vietnam Vet who wanted a license plate to commemorate when got wounded in Vietnam.
I do not understand why the state denied him:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/v ... id=U219DHP

Do you think this is off the wall?

[dr.hal]

People who graduated from High School in '69 (me for example) or college or anything, use the numbers quite often! It seems so superficial for the state to say no given what someone has to go through to earn that medal.

[Bullwinkle58]

It's not the medal that's the point of the denial.

[dr.hal]

No, it's the awarding of the medal in the year 1969 which is point of denial.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

No, it's the awarding of the medal in the year 1969 which is point of denial.

So, maybe that's the solution/compromise. CIB-1969.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

No, it's the awarding of the medal in the year 1969 which is point of denial.

No, the issue is even-handedness in denying. There is a case before the US Supreme Court at this moment on the issue of speech on state-issued license plates. (Walker vs. Sons of Confederate Veterans) The case concerns Texas' denial of the group's request to place a Confederate flag on their version of a fee-paid group license plate. Further, the issue turns on whether speech on a state plate--which is a state-owned device to which the state retains title and may seize at will--is speech by the state or speech by the car's owner. A ruling should be out by June.

In this case Utah has a policy. You may think it's a dumb policy, but it's probably not an illegal policy. As such it has to be enforced equally. That this is a veteran and not someone making a sexual comment is irrelevant to the fact that allowing this puts the state in the position of case-by-case determinations on the use of those numerals on its plates. And it apparently doesn't want to get into that deep water.

FWIW I'm a veteran and I don't believe veterans' free speech rights are more important than anyone else's. In this case that's the whole point of the issue and the article in the link.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

You may think it's a dumb policy, but it's probably not an illegal policy.

No I don't think it is a "dumb" policy, that's judgmental and I am not in the business of doing that nor did I "think" that. I am of the view that refusing to use two numbers in a sequence because of a connotation that some might reach is a slippery slope and sets a precedent that others might abuse in ways that could legitimately infringe upon free speech. We don't have absolute "free" speech in this country as there are limits in relation to "fighting words" etc, however I don't believe that this sequence of numbers rises to that level.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

You may think it's a dumb policy, but it's probably not an illegal policy.

No I don't think it is a "dumb" policy, that's judgmental and I am not in the business of doing that nor did I "think" that. I am of the view that refusing to use two numbers in a sequence because of a connotation that some might reach is a slippery slope and sets a precedent that others might abuse in ways that could legitimately infringe upon free speech. We don't have absolute "free" speech in this country as there are limits in relation to "fighting words" etc, however I don't believe that this sequence of numbers rises to that level.

That's not really the point, though. The point is that the state says "no sex jokes on your license plates" and rather than combing through all of the requested plates, just says you can't have 69 on your license plate. Doesn't matter who or what you are, you just can't.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

You may think it's a dumb policy, but it's probably not an illegal policy.

No I don't think it is a "dumb" policy, that's judgmental and I am not in the business of doing that nor did I "think" that. I am of the view that refusing to use two numbers in a sequence because of a connotation that some might reach is a slippery slope and sets a precedent that others might abuse in ways that could legitimately infringe upon free speech. We don't have absolute "free" speech in this country as there are limits in relation to "fighting words" etc, however I don't believe that this sequence of numbers rises to that level.

I guess that's up to the citizens of Utah in this case. From my reading it's an executive branch rule stemming from a statute. There's an appeal process. Due process provisions seem to be met. If the citizens there think it's a bad rule they can address that at the ballot box.

The crux of the case and the one in Walker seems to me to be if free speech is mandatorily allowed on government property. Do I have a right to walk up to a federal courthouse with a can of spray paint and do my will? A license plate is not owned by the speaker. It's not his canvas. Every state I know of that allows vanity plates has forbidden subject matter related to them. Utah has this, other states have that.

That said the appellate court in Texas agreed with the Sons of the Confederacy. We'll see what the USSC says. I have not read the relevant documents in the case.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I guess that's up to the citizens of Utah in this case. From my reading it's an executive branch rule stemming from a statute. There's an appeal process. Due process provisions seem to be met. If the citizens there think it's a bad rule they can address that at the ballot box.

My goodness, Bullwinkle58; critical thinking meets social media. Woof !!! I agree with everything you say. Ciao. JWE

[ed] I'm a Viet Nam vet from the same time period.

[AW1Steve]

I must have missed the boat somewhere. In the dozen or more states (and territories) in which I've resided, I have never encountered a DMV that was not arbitrary , contrary and capricious. Is there an expectation that an individual , that is to say a mere citizen , who just happens to be a veteran , actually expects to get what he wants from a Depart of Motor Vehicles? Next he'll be expecting prompt and pleasant service. [:D]

[wdolson]

I added OT to the first message. We might want to tone down the political arguing a bit. Free speech and what exactly it is tends to be one of those flash point discussions on various internet forums. I don't think Matrix would appreciate much more of that on their forum.

Bill