I. Introduction
A. Facts
1. In New Hampshire, every non-commercial vehicle is required to have a license plate that has a state motto called, “Live Free or Die.” The respondent, George Maynard who was a Jehovah’s Witness, viewed the motto to be non-religious. He believed “or die” part of the state motto went against his religion and covered that particular part of the license plate. Maynard initially simply covered “or die” part; however, as the children in his neighborhood continuously take off the cover, he tried to stop the children from taking off the cover by taping the motto.
2. The New Hampshire fined Maynard a fine, claiming that Maynard had violated the state law as a misdemeanor and three different charges
3. It is a misdemeanor …show more content…
Covering the part of the motto was not a symbolic speech because there was no speech. Although the ruling of the court focused much on the ruling of the Board of Education v Barnette, this case is different from the Barnette case
1. Rebuttal: The prior ruling from the Federal District Court stated that Maynard’s action was symbolic speech
a. Maynard’s action was a symbolic speech because his action implied his speech and thought towards the motto. Although he did not say his opposition out loud, the action of covering the motto with a tape could be a part of a speech
B. Regardless of the respondent’s opinion on the motto, he is required by the law to put the license plate with the motto. He must follow the state law. The purpose of the state law to symbolize the state’s desire for independence during the colonial period. The motto was adapted after the Battle of Bennington, Vermont. It implied a strong determination of the people for liberty
1. Rebuttal: The state law went against the First Amendment, and the argument that is made also goes against the First Amendment because the First Amendment grants the respondent a right to believe in different ideology and a right to refuse an ideology promoted by the state
C. The purpose of the license plate is for identification, and covering a part of the license plate undermine its …show more content…
Rebuttal: All the vanity plates have the state motto on them
2. Rebuttal: Purchasing the vanity plate would not have a difference for Maynard
E. Maynard was dis-fellowshipped from the Jehovah’s Witness by the time of his filing of lawsuit
1. Rebuttal: Even though he no longer believed in the same religion prior to the filing of the lawsuit, he was charged with fines when he believed in a religion that disagreed with the state motto.
IX. Conclusion
A. Refocus
1. The state of New Hampshire does not have a right to forcefully make people to promote the state’s belief
2. New Hampshire should have guaranteed an individual’s right to refuse to follow such law if it wants to have a policy that has religious, political, or ideological message
3. A freedom of speech and thought are protected by the First Amendment
4. Maynard’s action was a symbolic speech
5. Motto is irrelevant to the identification purpose of the vehicle
6. The main idea behind the state law was partial
B. What we want the court to do
1. To uphold the ruling from the Federal District Court
1. The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Maynard
2. The Federal District Court admitted Maynard’s action to be an act of symbolic
A. Facts
1. In New Hampshire, every non-commercial vehicle is required to have a license plate that has a state motto called, “Live Free or Die.” The respondent, George Maynard who was a Jehovah’s Witness, viewed the motto to be non-religious. He believed “or die” part of the state motto went against his religion and covered that particular part of the license plate. Maynard initially simply covered “or die” part; however, as the children in his neighborhood continuously take off the cover, he tried to stop the children from taking off the cover by taping the motto.
2. The New Hampshire fined Maynard a fine, claiming that Maynard had violated the state law as a misdemeanor and three different charges
3. It is a misdemeanor …show more content…
Covering the part of the motto was not a symbolic speech because there was no speech. Although the ruling of the court focused much on the ruling of the Board of Education v Barnette, this case is different from the Barnette case
1. Rebuttal: The prior ruling from the Federal District Court stated that Maynard’s action was symbolic speech
a. Maynard’s action was a symbolic speech because his action implied his speech and thought towards the motto. Although he did not say his opposition out loud, the action of covering the motto with a tape could be a part of a speech
B. Regardless of the respondent’s opinion on the motto, he is required by the law to put the license plate with the motto. He must follow the state law. The purpose of the state law to symbolize the state’s desire for independence during the colonial period. The motto was adapted after the Battle of Bennington, Vermont. It implied a strong determination of the people for liberty
1. Rebuttal: The state law went against the First Amendment, and the argument that is made also goes against the First Amendment because the First Amendment grants the respondent a right to believe in different ideology and a right to refuse an ideology promoted by the state
C. The purpose of the license plate is for identification, and covering a part of the license plate undermine its …show more content…
Rebuttal: All the vanity plates have the state motto on them
2. Rebuttal: Purchasing the vanity plate would not have a difference for Maynard
E. Maynard was dis-fellowshipped from the Jehovah’s Witness by the time of his filing of lawsuit
1. Rebuttal: Even though he no longer believed in the same religion prior to the filing of the lawsuit, he was charged with fines when he believed in a religion that disagreed with the state motto.
IX. Conclusion
A. Refocus
1. The state of New Hampshire does not have a right to forcefully make people to promote the state’s belief
2. New Hampshire should have guaranteed an individual’s right to refuse to follow such law if it wants to have a policy that has religious, political, or ideological message
3. A freedom of speech and thought are protected by the First Amendment
4. Maynard’s action was a symbolic speech
5. Motto is irrelevant to the identification purpose of the vehicle
6. The main idea behind the state law was partial
B. What we want the court to do
1. To uphold the ruling from the Federal District Court
1. The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Maynard
2. The Federal District Court admitted Maynard’s action to be an act of symbolic