Judge Rules California Ban On 'Offensive' License Plates Unconstitutional

A federal judge has ruled California's ban on "offensive" personalized license plates as unconstitutional on Tuesday, November 25.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar found that the ban constitutes viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, according to Courthousenews.com.

California's regulations give the DMV agency to refuse personalized license plate configurations that are "offensive to good taste and decency."

The criteria prohibit anything that is deemed obscene, vulgar, sexual, or has "a negative connotation to a specific group."

Tigar found that personalized license plates are private speech and the regulation discriminates on the basis of viewpoint.

Furthermore, he found that the DMV regulation was too subjective to properly enforce.

"Because there is no objective, workable standard of what is 'offensive to good taste and decency,' different reviewers can reach opposing conclusions on whether a certain configuration should be rejected based on their judgment of what might be 'offensive' or not in 'good taste," he wrote.

For example, the lead plaintiff Paul Ogilvie sued the DMV in March when his request for a plate reading 'OGWOOLF" was rejected on the basis that it could be a reference to gang affiliation.

Ogilvie is a disabled army veteran and the plate referenced a military nickname.

In another example, a gay man's request for a license plate that read "QUEER" was also rejected.

Tigar said his ruling doesn't prevent the DMV from rejected plates that request words that involve hate speech and profanity as those fall outside the protection of the First Amendment.

The DMV is currently reviewing the ruling.

Photo: Getty Images