Filed under: Government/Legal
Every state has different rules governing what can and can’t be displayed on vanity license plates. Not only do they vary, but many are vague about what combinations of letters and/or numbers are acceptable, which forces the state to determine acceptability on a case-by-case basis. Remember the ‘ILVTOFU’ controversy of 2011? Or what about Georgia’s rejection of gay-themed license plates?
New Jersey resident David Silverman has published a tale on Twitter regarding his application to the state’s Motor Vehicle Commission for a personalized license plate that reads “ATHEIST.” Silverman says in his tweet that the reason given for the state’s rejection of his godless vanity plate was that it’s offensive.
We don’t have much insight into how New Jersey decides which vanity plates are acceptable, but we did find this report published earlier this year on NJ.com that reveals a list of 1,085 words banned by the MVC for use on vanity plates. ATHEIST is not on the list (nor is THEIST, for that matter), but MVC spokesman Mike Horan told the reporter that applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, so the list has probably grown since then.
New Jersey’s got another problem: David Silverman isn’t just any atheist, he’s the President of American Atheists, a group that’s been around since the ’60s with a track record of taking cities and states to court to uphold the rights of non-believers. It doesn’t sound like Silverman was looking for a fight, but the Garden State just gave him one. He’s already filed his first appeal.
New Jersey rejects ‘ATHEIST’ vanity plate for being offensive originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Continue reading “New Jersey rejects ‘ATHEIST’ vanity plate for being offensive”
The California court system has found that Toyota Motor Insurance Services does not violate the state’s consumer warranty law. According to Automotive News, a court of appeal found that the contracts offer enough services outside of the factory warranty to be considered legal. Toyota was originally sued after Weber DeSiqueira purchased a then-new 2007 Tundra. At the time, the vehicle came with a three-year, 36,000 mile warranty, but DeSiqueira also laid down $1,145 for a Toyota Extra Care Vehicle Service Agreement. The lawsuit alleged that the service agreement covered the same items as the factory, putting the Japanese automaker in violation of the California warranty law.
