put me on those keys...

Interesting case involving free speech and abortion, in which a federal judge ruled that Louisiana's system for specialty plates violates the First Amendment because it allows anti-abortion plates but does not offer one for the opposing view.

The judge reasons that "[i]f the state built a convention hall for speech and then only allowed people to speak with whom they agreed with their message, the state's actions would be in contravention of the First Amendment. There is no significant difference in the case before the court."

There is something to this logic. The license plate itself is not a forum akin to the convention hall. But it could be argued that the system of specialty plates implemented by the State of Louisiana is a forum for speech. But this argument rests on shaky First Amendment grounds at best.

Traditional public fora are open for expressive activity regardless of the government's intent. But systems of specialty plates can hardly be characterized as traditional public fora. Traditional public fora include things like convention halls and public streets.

Alternatively, the government is free to open additional properties for expressive use by the general public or by a particular class of speakers, thereby creating designated public fora. But there is nothing to suggest that the government intended to open up the system of specialty plates for expressive use by the general public. In fact, because there is no "choose choice" plate available, I would argue that the government's intention was clearly not to open up the system of specialty plates to the general public.

Where the property is not a traditional public forum and the government has not chosen to create a designated public forum, the property is either a nonpublic forum or not a forum at all. This would probably be the case here. The system of specialty plates is very likely not a forum at all. But let's say it's a nonpublic forum for the sake of argument. If that's the case, that doesn't mean that the government can thereby exclude all speech. The government can restrict access to a nonpublic forum only "as long as the restrictions are reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view." Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985).

Without knowing more about the details of the case, I cannot comment on whether the restrictions are merely an effort by the State to suppress the pro-choice view. But the fact that the system of specialty plates is very likely not a forum at all, or alternatively merely a nonpublic forum, really makes the case quite difficult for the pro-choicers.