.
Posted on 04/18/2023 8:09:31 AM PDT by Twotone
A federal appeals court says honking isn't First Amendment–protected activity. There's no constitutional right to honk your car horn, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The case involves Susan Porter, who repeatedly honked her car horn while driving past protesters in California in 2017. A deputy with the San Diego County Sheriff's Office issued Porter a ticket, saying she had violated a state law against misuse of car horns.
Porter pushed back, filing a federal lawsuit in 2018. In it, she alleged that honking her horn in solidarity with the protesters was protected First Amendment activity and that the California law used to ticket her—which prohibits using a car horn except "when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation" or when used "as a theft alarm system"—was unconstitutional.
A U.S. district court ruled against Porter, and now the 9th Circuit has upheld that lower court's ruling. For "the horn to serve its intended purpose as a warning device, it must not be used indiscriminately," wrote Judge Michelle Friedland for the majority.
But 9th Circuit judge Marsha Berzon thinks her colleagues got it wrong. In her dissent, Berzon noted that California cops are taught to use discretion when enforcing the horn-honking law, which could lead to selective (and discriminatory) enforcement. And Berzon scoffed at the idea that Porter honking while driving past a protest would be confused for anything but political speech.
"A political protest is designed to be noticed," wrote Berzon. "Political honking was hardly a significant source of noise or distraction in that environment. There is no basis for supposing that anyone was confused or distracted by the honking. Instead, Porter's honking was understood as political expression by the protesters, who cheered in response."
"Berzon also blasted the lower court's reliance on expert testimony by California Highway Patrol Sgt. William Beck," notes Courthouse News:
Beck said that car horns can startle and distract drivers and, if they're used indiscriminately, can "dilute the potency of the horn as a warning device." Berzon said Beck's testimony and the examples he gave amounted to opinion, not scientific fact.
"In none of these examples did Beck report any actual danger created by the honk. And, in any case, those examples were based on Beck's personal experience, no different from anyone else's experience with horn honking and so unrelated to any 'scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge' or experience," Berzon wrote.
Plus, Berzon added, the point of a protest is to make noise to call attention to a cause or an issue—making it a free speech issue.
First Amendment Coalition legal director David Loy told The Washington Post that the court's decision "punishes a very common and ordinary form of political expression that people engage in every day."
"I was shocked that [California] law prohibits a common and widespread means of political, social, and personal expression," Loy said in a February interview on his group's website. "The government should not be stifling a critical form of expression, especially when public-health restrictions can curtail other means of assembly and protest, as we've sometimes seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. The statute at issue, Cal. Vehicle Code § 27001, allows horn use to give a warning but prohibits it to communicate any other message. As applied to expressive horn use, that is the essence of unconstitutional content-based discrimination."
California isn't alone in restricting expressive honking. Court rulings on these laws have been mixed, as Belmont law professor David L. Hudson, Jr. points out.
In a 1998 case, the Montana Supreme Court said protest-oriented honking "did not constitute a protest to government of government acts which would be entitled to protection under the First Amendment." A federal court in New York has also rejected the idea that horn honking is protected expressive conduct.
"However, at least one lower court has recognized a free expression challenge to a horn-honking law, albeit on state constitutional law grounds," Hudson notes. "The Oregon Court of Appeals, in City of Eugene v. Powlowski (Ore. App. 1992), ruled that a city law prohibiting horn honking for purposes other than a reasonable warning to another vehicle violated the free expression guarantee of Article 1, section 8 of the state constitution."
bookmark for later.... shaking head. lolol
I’ve witnessed many people using their car horns for self expression. Usually combined with hand gestures using a raised middle finger to add to their message.
They were just displaying their IQ.
The is NO Constitutional right for a legislative body to regulate and make statutes against honking a car horn.
A free and sovereign People abiding by Common Law can honk as we please.
States’ rights.
They can restrict it, but these laws are written to be open to interpretation by law enforcement if they want to enforce them or not.
An officer that disagrees with the use of a horn may write a ticket while another officer might not write a ticket.
It is very subjective and unclear.
I remember the “Honk if You Love Jesus” bumperstickers. I guess that’s out. The Veterans for Peace sometimes demonstrate at the war memorial in Highland, Indiana (but only during Republican administrations) and they have signs asking drivers to honk if they agreed with them. I guess that’s out, too.
Even if the state’s argument might be correct, they obviously don’t ticket everyone who drives by a protest and honks in support. So by selectively enforcing this policy, it’s still unconstitutional, since they are using it for targeted political persecution.
I remember seeing a bumper sticker on a car with Alabama license plates saying “HONK IF YOU HAVE TO POOP”.
Sure there is. Noise pollution. Horns are for alerting other drivers that don’t appear to be seeing you. It’s not speech.
Well, that’s different!
Regardless of it being “speech” or not “speech”, legislatures have no Constitutional jurisdiction over a Free People to do things that do no personal harm to others - Common Law.
.
Noise pollution. Also confusing other drivers. They ABSOLUTELY have jurisdiction. The same jurisdiction that lets them set the speed limit and create traffic laws lets them say what horns (on the road, subject to all traffic laws) are used for. Now if you want to pull your car into your garage where it won’t bother your neighbors and blow your horn until you go deaf great, go for it. But on the public where the legislature makes the rules, you are subject to those rules.
Most overturned Court in the country.
5.56mm
Just install an additional beeping device of some sort.
It will not be ‘the horn on your car’ which is for traffic purposes.
It will be a dedicated 1A communication device.
I don’t know what sound it should make, how different from a regular ‘honk’ it should be.
Maybe do not attach permanently.
It could look like a Bull Horn, they seem exempt these days.
Used to be that repeated car honking was a sign that someone had just gotten married, although I guess that could be thought of as a warning.
An example:. I use a bull HORN to shout down leftist and other vermin.
5.56mm
It should blare out "MEN CAN GET PREGNANT!" and we'd get to watch the courts suddenly discover a new civil right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.