Atheist Sues After NJ Rejects Her License Plate

[Jacob(smooth)]

I find the idea that unrest might be caused by announcing their Atheism frankly terrifying in and of itself!

Seems a pretty common thing in the US, especially in areas where the god squad reside.

It makes no sense!

I mean anything supernatural makes no sense but this isn't even vaguely consistent. The bible says to go out and witness to the lost, that infers that there will be unbelievers kicking around. Why would a Christian get the hump with someone just for being an unbeliever?

I don't understand.

[Cato]

I think some here are being a little uncharitable when reading Haywood's responses. Nowhere was he equivocating atheism and racism. He clearly doesn't have an issue with an atheist themed vanity plate by virtue of the fact that one of his two options is to allow any combination of characters.

I think his argument that the state has an interest in preventing vandalism based on a state sponsored display, although a reasonable proposition, is misplaced based on the fact that states are on record stating that the censorship is based on decency, good taste and the desire not to offend. At any rate, construing Haywood's argument to mean he is worried about the physical integrity of the plate itself or that he claims atheism incites violence or unrest is a little bizarre.

I'll be interested to see how this case unfolds. I hope the courts take the opportunity to weigh in on the nuanced first amendment issue at stake and not simply rule on the religious discrimination angle.

[Strongbad]

Personally, I like it when I see religious license plates (I saw “4 HIS GLRY” yesterday) and other religious symbols or bumper stickers on cars. Since the drivers have conveniently self-identified to be idiots, I know to give them an extra-wide berth in traffic.

[Anomalocaris]

I think some here are being a little uncharitable when reading Haywood's responses. Nowhere was he equivocating atheism and racism. He clearly doesn't have an issue with an atheist themed vanity plate by virtue of the fact that one of his two options is to allow any combination of characters.

I think his argument that the state has an interest in preventing vandalism based on a state sponsored display, although a reasonable proposition, is misplaced based on the fact that states are on record stating that the censorship is based on decency, good taste and the desire not to offend. At any rate, construing Haywood's argument to mean he is worried about the physical integrity of the plate itself or that he claims atheism incites violence or unrest is a little bizarre.

I'll be interested to see how this case unfolds. I hope the courts take the opportunity to weigh in on the nuanced first amendment issue at stake and not simply rule on the religious discrimination angle.

I think he was being a undoubtedly intentional provacateur when he chose with malice the exact analogies that he selected. What is to be charitable about in that?

[Jacob(smooth)]

Personally, I like it when I see religious license plates (I saw “4 HIS GLRY” yesterday) and other religious symbols or bumper stickers on cars.

[Cato]

I think he was being a undoubtedly intentional provacateur when he chose with malice the exact analogies that he selected. What is to be charitable about in that?

If being provocative is an issue, then many here should refrain from posting; myself included. His example was extreme, but I thought it perfectly illustrated that a vanity plate can in fact be considered offensive by a reasonable person. Understanding this gives his proposals of either eliminating vanity plates or letting anything go as means of avoiding abuse of censorship a significant level of sincerity.

[SteelCurtain]

I think some here are being a little uncharitable when reading Haywood's responses. Nowhere was he equivocating atheism and racism. He clearly doesn't have an issue with an atheist themed vanity plate by virtue of the fact that one of his two options is to allow any combination of characters.

I think his argument that the state has an interest in preventing vandalism based on a state sponsored display, although a reasonable proposition, is misplaced based on the fact that states are on record stating that the censorship is based on decency, good taste and the desire not to offend. At any rate, construing Haywood's argument to mean he is worried about the physical integrity of the plate itself or that he claims atheism incites violence or unrest is a little bizarre.

I'll be interested to see how this case unfolds. I hope the courts take the opportunity to weigh in on the nuanced first amendment issue at stake and not simply rule on the religious discrimination angle.

That's why I clarified. I realize he wasn't equivocating the two, but my issue with what he said was making atheism responsible for the idiocy of bigots. This isn't about a tag that reads "GODSUX" or "FUCKGOD" or something like that. This is about a tag that simply says "8THEIST." It's not provocative in any way. If I were to get assaulted by a theist for saying publicly that there is no such thing as a god, is that my fault for provoking? Or is that the fault of the person who attacked me (and btw as a result got his ass kicked) for believing differently?

I just don't see the nuance in it. You allow things that aren't provocative. I don't see any reason why a statement of belief (or lack thereof) should be disallowed.

[Cato]

That's why I clarified. I realize he wasn't equivocating the two, but my issue with what he said was making atheism responsible for the idiocy of bigots. This isn't about a tag that reads "GODSUX" or "FUCKGOD" or something like that. This is about a tag that simply says "8THEIST." It's not provocative in any way. If I were to get assaulted by a theist for saying publicly that there is no such thing as a god, is that my fault for provoking? Or is that the fault of the person who attacked me (and btw as a result got his ass kicked) for believing differently?

I just don't see the nuance in it. You allow things that aren't provocative. I don't see any reason why a statement of belief (or lack thereof) should be disallowed.

Based on the discussion so far, I don't think anybody here, including Haywood, has a problem with "8THEIST" on a tag. I also think we all agree that "8THEIST" shouldn't result in assault or vandalism, but a quick Google search will reveal that cars have been vandalized for less; e.g., FSM and Darwin emblems. These manifestations of speech are not in any way responsible for the vandalism, which is the point you are driving at.

Heywood,
Do you agree with the last statement? One of your options was to allow all speech and accept the consequences. What I can't infer is what you mean by 'accept the consequences'. Do you mean that people should expect to be assaulted or have their vehicles vandalized as a result of their speech? Or do you allow that if assault and/or vandalism occurs that the aggressor should be convicted or made to pay reparations as the case merits?

[Zen Badger]

In one way Heywood is admitting that Christians have worse morals than atheists.

Since he recognises that a theistic plate won't be vandalised by atheists but a atheist plate is very likely to be attacked by Christians.

[Cinjin]

This is some right ignorant logic here:

Suppose David Duke put a license plate on his car that read:

NGGR H8R

Would his car get torched? While you might own the car you don't own the plate. The state realizes there are assholes in the world and doesn't want to have its property used to incite those assholes towards violence.

It seems abundantly clear that those assholes you speak of would be primarily Christians and Muslims. Who else would possibly get so bent out of shape over a simple word like 'atheist?'

If this atheist really wants to express her atheism....she can purchase a bumper sticker so her ability to speak is not impinged.

Perhaps the government should go ahead and decide which bumper stickers can be placed on vehicles as well. True, the stickers aren't actually made by the government, but some "asshole could vandalize a vehicle" because of it. Lets just do away with free speech so nothing ever gets vandalized. /sarcasm

In my opinion the state should either allow all speech on its plates and accept the consequences thereof, or not allow its plates to be used for speech at all. Playing a guessing game of what speech is okay and what isn't is just ripe for abuse.

And yet you clearly seem to condone the states decision to censor certain groups ....

I understand why she is upset, but I also understand why the state would want to discriminate.

I could see the state banning the plate, "WHTEPWR" and allowing "BLCKPWR". The first is more likely to incite violence than the second.

So you want to give the government the power to decide what IS and IS NOT "safe" to use on a license plate simply because historically, one group is scarier than another. Which really means that you're admitting that you and the rest of the christards are angry unreasonable unethical savages who can't walk by a simple word without reacting like ignorant primitives.

Yet somehow I'll bet you don't support censorship of your prayers at a HS graduation ceremony do you.

<cough> hypocrite <cough>