Dispute Over a License Plate in Tennessee
In 2021, Tennessee state authorities revoked the personalized license plate “69PWNDU” belonging to Leah Gilliam, citing its allegedly unacceptable meaning. Gilliam, a resident of Nashville, had received this plate back in 2010, but eleven years later the state government decided that the combination of symbols could have a sexual connotation, specifically a reference to “sexual domination.” The owner herself explains that the number 69 relates to her telephone number, and the abbreviation PWNDU is related to gaming slang, meaning a victory in the game.
The Case Reached the U.S. Supreme Court
Gilliam challenged the authorities’ decision first in state court, but the Tennessee Supreme Court supported the government’s position, recognizing that personalized license plates are a form of government speech, not private expression. Thus, their content is not protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. Disagreeing with this interpretation, Gilliam appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, emphasizing that her rights had been violated.
The judges recognized that personalized plates are considered government speech, not private expression, which excludes them from First Amendment protection.
Lawyers Warn of a Dangerous Precedent
Gilliam’s lawyers argue that the Tennessee court’s decision sets a dangerous precedent. If such plates are considered government speech, then the authorities gain the ability to censor any messages, for example, allowing political slogans of one party and prohibiting others. This could lead to discrimination based on views and a violation of the principles of free speech.
Difference in Rules Between States
Another important aspect of the case is the significant difference in approaches to personalized license plates in different states. For example, the same plate might be allowed in Maryland, Oregon, California, or Michigan, but prohibited in Tennessee, Indiana, or Hawaii. This creates a chaotic system where drivers’ rights depend on their place of residence.
Drivers face the fact that their free speech rights change when moving to another state, which contradicts the principles of unity of constitutional guarantees.
Examples of such contradictions include cases where Texas banned the plate “JAIL 45” (a position against Donald Trump), and in Michigan — “OSUSUCKS” (criticism of a sports rival). At the same time, Arizona allowed the plate “JESUSNM,” while Vermont blocked “JN36TN” (an abbreviation for the Gospel of John 3:16).
Broader Context of the Problem
According to data, Tennessee has about 60 thousand personalized license plates, and since 1998, about a thousand of them have been rejected. Lawyers and rights organizations, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the First Amendment Lawyers Association, believe that the Tennessee court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences, extending far beyond motor vehicles.
The issue of free speech through such seemingly minor things as license plates actually touches on fundamental principles. In modern society, where communication occurs through various channels, including symbols on cars, it is important to maintain a balance between state regulation and individual rights. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in this case could set an important precedent for similar cases in the future, influencing how we understand the limits of freedom of expression in public space.