Compelled Expression: Maynard v. Wooley

In 1969, the New Hampshire legislature enacted a law requiring that the state motto, "Live Free or Die," be displayed on all license plates for noncommercial vehicles. Many individuals in New Hampshire objected to the motto for various religious or philosophical reasons, and several decided to obliterate the motto by placing tape or painting over it. After numerous prosecutions under the license plate defacement statute, the constitutionality of the law was challenged as it applied to the obliteration of the motto. In 1972, the New Hampshire Supreme Court in State v. Hoskin held that the law did not violate the first amendment freedom from compelled expression as set forth in Board of Education v. Barnette because the display of the motto on a motorist's license plate was not an "affirmation" of his personal beliefs. Four years later, in Maynard v. Wooley, the constitutionality of the law was again examined. This time the three-member federal district court focused on the communicative aspect of the reflective red tape used by the Maynards to obliterate the motto, and held that the act of covering up the motto warranted first amendment protection as "symbolic speech." After balancing first amendment considerations against countervailing state interests, the court issued an injuction against future enforcement of the statute against the Maynards. The court declined to pass on an argument similar to that raised in State v. Hoskin relating to the right to be free from compelled expression. The decisions reached in Hoskin and Maynard leave unsettled the right of individuals to be free from certain forms of compelled expression. This Note analyzes the scope of this right as it has been articulated in Barnette and the cases dealing with "symbolic speech." It also analyzes the related question dealing with the validity of using state authority to compel individual expression.