Governments are weird. Maybe “weird” isn’t the right word. The more accurate word may be “opportunistic.” When it comes to speech they don’t like, they move into this mode. If they think they can silence it, they will try to. And they’ll do this while still pretending the speech they’re trying to control is nothing more than their own.
Dig if you will, my brothers: vanity plates. Government speech or personal speech? Those who view this rationally likely believe that the message on a vanity license plate is the expression of the plate’s purchaser. That it’s delivered by a state-issued plate doesn’t matter. We don’t actually believe the government is trying to send a message with their IMGOD or COPSLIE or LOVETOFU vanity plate. (ALL ACTUAL CASES.)
Instead, we would logically infer the truncated statement on the vanity plate expresses the views of the person paying for this privilege.
But the government also believes it has some obligation to “protect” other drivers from being offended by the personal expressions of others, which is a supremely ridiculous belief to entertain, even professionally. So, the entities issuing plates tend to err on the side of absurdity (governments tend to phrase this as “caution”), rejecting any plate any government plate content moderator might view as “offensive.”
How is it government endorsed speech if I pick what goes on it? My vehicle is not a public building and my plate doesn’t represent anyone but me.
That license plate is my property. I keep it. Just because it is official government stamped isn’t relevant.
Because they also pick what does not go on it. Which means that the government says “this speech we endorse, but this speech we do not.”
Also you’re required to return or destroy plates in certain states when they send you new ones (every few years, or when purchasing a new vehicle). Doesn’t sound like they’re your property when the state reserves the right to ask for them back.
Fair points there on both accounts.