The fight for freedom of speech has been a bedrock of the ACLU’s mission since the organization was founded in 1920, driven by the need to protect the constitutional rights of conscientious objectors and anti-war protesters. Our work quickly spread to combating censorship, securing the right to assembly, and promoting free speech in schools.
More than a century later, these battles have taken on new forms, but they still persist. That’s why we continue to champion freedom of expression in all forms – protest, media, online speech, the arts, and yes, even personalized license plates.
Although only a few characters long, “vanity plates” are often used to convey a meaningful expression of the driver’s personal identity, values, or sense of humor. Unfortunately, South Dakota state officials who issue license plates were given the discretion to censor the messages on these plates if they deemed them to be “offensive to good taste and decency.”
That’s why the ACLU of South Dakota filed a federal lawsuit challenging South Dakota's personalized license plate law and the Motor Vehicle Division’s policy. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Lyndon Hart whose application for a “REZWEED” plate was initially denied as being allegedly “in poor taste.”
“But it’s just a license plate,” people said. “Aren’t there more important things to focus on?” they asked.
While it’s tempting for some to classify this as an insignificant issue, this is about so much more than just a license plate. It’s about our First Amendment rights.
Freedom of expression, a right protected by the First Amendment, is the foundation of a vibrant democracy. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is “the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.” Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither away. The diminishment of these protected rights also disproportionately impact Black and Indigenous Peoples historically so when an issue arises like censorship of marginalized communities, we are even more so aware of the need to protect those rights.
The First Amendment, after all, is the foundation of self-fulfillment. The right to express one’s thoughts and to communicate freely with others affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society and allows each individual to realize his or her full human potential. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself — and as such, deserves society’s greatest protection.
But despite its “preferred position” in our constitutional hierarchy, the nation’s commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. We protect the First Amendment not only because it is the lifeblood of democracy and an indispensable element of freedom, but because it is the guarantor of civil society itself.
If the state of South Dakota has the right to put the brakes on personalized license plate applications because they might carry “connotations offensive to good taste and decency” – a standard that is overly broad, vague and subjective – where does it stop? As the old adage says, “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.” Not on our watch. We won’t allow the government to chip away our constitutional rights like this one piece at a time.
It’s dangerous to allow the government to decide which speech is allowed and which should be censored – even when we’re talking about personalized license plates.
A version of this column also appeared in South Dakota Searchlight.
