Driver can’t make Hawaii issue a license plate expressing ‘profane’ opposition to Black Lives Matter: Judge

Edward Odquina, center, holds a Trump Make America Great Again at an anti-Trump protest in Honolulu on Friday, Nov. 3, 2017. Odquino’s lawsuit against the City of Honolulu for revoking his vanity license plate was dismissed Monday. (Craig T. Kojima/The Star-Advertiser via AP)

A federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed by a vocal critic of Black Lives Matter challenging the city of Honolulu’s refusal to allow him to register his red Pontiac Firebird with a vanity plate reading “FCKBLM.”

Edward Odquina sued the city after his preferred license plate was revoked for being too profane. In his complaint, Odquina explained that “BLM” was an acronym for “Black Lives Matter,” and described the group as having been founded in response to the death of Trayvon Martin.

Odquina also asserted some of the basic facts of 17-year-old Martin’s death at the hands of George Zimmerman in 2012, followed by Zimmerman’s acquittal of second-degree murder charges.

In the filing, Odquina also included various statements about BLM generally, including that the group “is characterized as being known as focusing on perceived racism, police brutality and structural racism,” that, “it claims to be decentralized,” and that it, “became associated” with the death of George Floyd.

Odquina said that, “BLM is a polarizing group,” and that its goals are “widely known throughout the U.S.” Odquina said he “vehemently disagrees” with the group’s positions, such as “defunding police departments and its assertions that many or all police officers and the criminal justice system itself, are inherently racist and violent to minorities, specifically black Americans.”

Odquina said in 2021 he incorporated a business called “Film Consulting KravMAGA Bloomberg, LLC,” and that he wanted a vanity plate reading “FCKBLM” to advertise his business. He also said he had the website www.FCKBLM.org for his business.

However, Odquina was clear in his court filing that the letters used in the vanity plate did not just coincidentally feature “BLM.” Rather, he said that he was “so opposed to the policies and statements of BLM” that he wanted the vanity plate to “convey his personal opinion and exercise his free speech rights.”

Odquina added that Black Lives Matter has “received considerable governmental approval” and asserted that “politicians” have allowed the group to display its motto, colors, flag, and messages.

The city of Honolulu initially issued Odquina his license plates as requested, but shortly thereafter a county employee called and explained that the plates had been “flagged” and asked Odquina for further explanation. Odquina said in his complaint that although he told the employee that the plate was simply an acronym for his business, he was later informed by mail that his plate had been recalled as “objectionable” due to an “implied expletive” contained in the first three letters.

Odquina filed suit against Honolulu claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated by the recall and likening his preferred plate to allowable plates bearing phrases such as “combat wounded,” “veteran,” “Pearl Harbor survivor,” and, “former prisoner of war.” In his claim, Odquina said that the “FCKBLM” plate had two meanings: a “public expression of displeasure” with Black Lives Matter, and simultaneously, an acronym for his business.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson, a Barack Obama appointee, dismissed the complaint Monday in a 43-page ruling.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision over flying a Christian flag at City Hall in Shurtleff v. City of Boston , Watson said that the vanity license plate was not Odquina’s speech, but rather, constituted government speech. Alphanumeric license plates serve the function of regulating vehicles and are generally understood as government-sanctioned, said the judge.

“As such, no First Amendment review was necessary or appropriate,” Watson concluded.

In a series of footnotes, Watson noted that Odquina admitted that the first three letters were intended to refer to the expletive “f—” and noted that, Odquina also runs a website from which it appears that “FCKBLM” may also stand for the name of his nonprofit: “FIGHT COMMUNISM AND KNUCKLEHEAD B—- LIBERAL MARXISTS.”

Watson seemed a bit impatient with Odquina’s argument on the merits of the case, as it mirrored that which was put forth and rejected at an earlier phase in the litigation. In 2023, Odquina appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and lost.

“Such analysis need not, and will not, be rehashed here,” said Watson. “Suffice to say, Odquina’s arguments lack as much merit now as they did during the preliminary relief stage.”

The court also smacked down Odquina’s argument that restriction of the word “FCK” constituted unlawful viewpoint discrimination, because his use of profanity “is itself a viewpoint.”

Watson said that although the First Amendment may protect an individual’s right to express offensive beliefs, there is no absolute right to express those beliefs in whatever manner a person chooses.

“[T]he First Amendment protects the freedom of speech; it does not require the Government to give aid and comfort to those using obscene, vulgar, and profane mods of expression,” wrote the judge, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Watson ruled that the city’s rules prohibiting profane vanity plates were inherently reasonable and rejected Odquina’s arguments that the statute at hand was unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

Watson dismissed the case and refused to allow Odquina a chance to amend his complaint as to either a free speech or due process claim, reasoning that the man had failed to “demonstrate a cognizable liberty or property interest in his desired vanity plate, and the city has provided all process that was due.”

Law&Crime reached out to Odquina’s attorney, but did not receive a response.

Watson’s order contrasts sharply with a 2022 ruling by a federal judge in Delaware who deemed it a “significant constitutional issue” when Delaware’s Division of Motor Vehicles revoked a woman’s vanity plate reading “FCANCER.” Likewise, in 2021, Law&Crime reported a lawsuit filed by Mississippi car owners that argued that including “In God We Trust” on the state’s standard-issue license plates violated their First Amendment rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court opined on license plates in 1977 when in a landmark First Amendment case it ruled that New Hampshire could not force its citizens to display the “Live Free or Die” state motto on automobile license plates.

The post Driver can’t make Hawaii issue a license plate expressing ‘profane’ opposition to Black Lives Matter: Judge first appeared on Law & Crime .