l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 左派=反宗教：Vermont州的左派禁止定制的车牌上包含任何的宗教文字，却允许各种其
他文字。公然违
反联邦宪法第一修正案所保证的言论自由。
http://volokh.com/2010/10/08/ban-on-references-to-deities-on-license-plates-
unconstitutional-viewpoint-discrimination/
Ban on References to Deities on License Plates = Unconstitutional Viewpoint
Discrimination
Eugene Volokh • October 8, 2010 3:02 pm
So holds today’s Second Circuit decision in Byrne v. Rutledge:
At issue here is the state ban on any combination [of letters and numbers on
a personalized license plate] that “refer[s], in any language, to a ...
religion” or “deity.” Id. § 304(d)(4). The asserted purpose of the ban
is to
avoid the “distraction and disruption [that would] result[] from
controversial speech” and to “disassociat[e] the State from speech” it
does
not endorse....
This Court concluded in Perry [an earlier precedent] that “vanity plates
are
a highly limited and extremely constrained means of expression,” that
Vermont had not created a public forum by permitting the discourse possible
on vanity plates, and that, accordingly, “a Vermont vanity plate is a
nonpublic forum.” ... [T]he government enjoys greater latitude in
restricting speech in a nonpublic forum and may limit access or content
“based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions
drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are
viewpoint neutral.” ...
In evaluating viewpoint neutrality within the context of a nonpublic forum,
two guiding principles emerge. First, the government may permissibly
restrict content by prohibiting any speech on a given topic or subject
matter. Second, however, once the government has permitted some comment on a
particular subject matter or topic, it may not then “regulate speech in
ways
that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others.” Accordingly,
while “a speaker may be excluded from a nonpublic forum if he wishes to
address a topic not encompassed within the purpose of the forum . . . the
government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker
solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible
subject.” ...
Vermont freely permits motorists to use vanity plates for expression on a
wide variety of subjects, including one’s personal philosophy, beliefs, and
values, and similarly allows statements of self-identity, affiliation, and
inspiration. Having opened the forum to these “permissible subjects,” ...
Vermont’s ban on “any refer[ence] to ... a religion” or “deity” serves
to
“exclude” speakers who wish to comment upon those otherwise permissible
subjects simply because they seek to do so “from a religious viewpoint.” .
..
Whatever its stated intent, Vermont’s ban on religious messages in practice
operates not to restrict speech to certain subjects but instead to
distinguish between those who seek to express secular and religious views on
the same subjects. Under the current law, a motorist’s personal philosophy,
beliefs, and values are all permissible and frequent topics of expression —
Vermont has issued plates such as CARP DM, PEACE2U, LIVFREE, and BPOSTIV,
among others — provided the philosophies, beliefs, and values express a
secular perspective. Those who wish to express a personal philosophy,
belief, or value that reflects, even only subjectively, a religious view —
e.g., PRAY, ONEGOD, SEEKGOD — have been prohibited from doing so. Similarly
,
Vermont freely permits statements of identity and affiliation — e.g.,
BUTCHER, REBEL, ARMYMOM, GOYANKS; statements of love and admiration — e.g.,
THXDAD, ILUVLYN, MI3SONS, MISUDAD; and statements of inspiration — e.g.,
BEWILD, THNKPOS, HOPE4ME, DARE2BU — provided the statements express secular
messages and perspectives. Those who would express themselves on matters of
self-identity or make statements of love, respect, or inspiration from a
religious viewpoint, however, through plates such as REV 3 20, THE REV, UM
REV, and PSALM48, are excluded from the forum. It is, in other words, the
“[t]he prohibited perspective, not the general subject matter” that leads
to
the exclusion.
Appellant’s proposed plate — JN36TN — references the often-quoted
Biblical
verse, John 3:16, which reads in full: “For God so loved the world that he
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.” The district court made no factual
findings as to Byrne’s intentions in referencing this passage — i.e.,
whether Byrne intended the message as a statement of personal belief or
philosophy or simply as a statement of self-identity as a Christian or
affiliation with the Christian church – and we need not dwell on them here.
The critical fact is that Vermont permits use of state vanity plates for
comment on all of these subjects, so long as the comment is from a secular
perspective. The state rejected Byrne’s message only because it addressed
these areas of otherwise permissible expression from a religious
perspective. This the state cannot do. Having open |
|
