Help! I'm being oppressed!

[BKDotCom]

I just came across this.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Appeals_court_rules_Oklahoma_license_plate_suit_has/20130612_11_A1_CUTLIN155639

Edit:  new working link:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/appeals-court-rules-oklahoma-license-plate-suit-has-merit/article_9f1eece5-9178-5923-b0c9-ed6c3d557396.html

(Tulsa World should have implemented an old-url to new url map... instead of breaking everyting)

Appeals court rules Oklahoma license plate suit has merit
DENVER - An appeals court gave new life Tuesday to a lawsuit of a man who claims a Native American image on Oklahoma's license plates violates his religious rights as a Christian by portraying Indian religion.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that a judge in Oklahoma City erred last year by throwing out the lawsuit of Keith Cressman, an Oklahoma City-area resident.

Cressman, who says he "adheres to historic Christian beliefs," objects to the image of a Native American shooting an arrow toward the sky. He claims the image unconstitutionally contradicts his Christian beliefs by depicting Indian religious beliefs, and that he shouldn't have to display the image.

The appellate judges stated Oklahoma law imposes sanctions for covering up the image and the state charges more for speciality plates without it.

His 2011 lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City seeks a court order allowing him either to cover up the image on his plates or to get a personalized plate for the same cost as a standard license plate.

"Mr. Cressman's (lawsuit) states a plausible compelled speech claim," the appellate judges wrote Tuesday in a 39-page decision, reversing Judge Joe Heaton's dismissal of the lawsuit. "He has alleged sufficient facts to suggest that the 'Sacred Rain Arrow' image on the standard Oklahoma license plate conveys a particularized message that others are likely to understand and to which he objects."

Cressman's attorney, Nathan Kellum, said the decision may boost his client's chances when the case goes back to Heaton for further proceedings.

"It appears that the court has recognized the constitutional rights at stake and that Mr. Cressman could very well be suffering from forced compulsion of speech," said Kellum of the Memphis-based Center for Religious Expression.

The Oklahoma attorney general's staff is representing state officials defending the state's position.

"The 10th Circuit decision simply recognizes the importance of the First Amendment and offers another chance to review this case," said Diane Clay, a spokeswoman for the attorney general. "We'll continue to defend the state's position that Oklahoma's license plate design does not violate Mr. Cressman's constitutional rights."

The image is of a sculpture at the Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa by Allan Houser of an Indian shooting an arrow into the sky to bring rain. The change in license plate design began in 2009.

Senior 10th Circuit Judge William Holloway of Oklahoma City was one of the three judges of the Denver-based court which issued Tuesday's decision.

Kellum said the appeals court's decision "provides some analysis of legal opinions that we think will help Mr. Cressman's cause" when Heaton reconsiders it.
Original Print Headline: Court: Okla. license plate lawsuit has merit

Just how stupid is this?
Every comment is on point and in agreement... said lawsuit stupid & plaintiff is a retard.

[Ed W]

He has a point if the image is religious in nature, but if not, he'll lose.

[Gaspar]

Good grief!

[custosnox]

Good grief!

and how would it be different than if it was a pentagram?

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

[cannon_fodder]

He has a point if the image is religious in nature, but if not, he'll lose.

This.

The image on Oklahoma's license plate is of a statute by Allen Houser, called "Sacred Rain Arrow."  As you know it is currently housed at Gilrease.

Per the description:

This monumental piece depicts a young Apache warrior shooting his arrow towards heaven with the hope of carrying a prayer for rain to the Spirit World.

http://www.csfineartscenter.org/collection-spotlight/houser-sacred.asp

or this one:

The new state license plate features the "Sacred Rain Arrow" sculpture by the late Allan Houser, the Oklahoma Tax Commission announced Friday.

The sculpture is on display at Tulsa's Gilcrease Museum.

"It is depicting a young Apache warrior who was selected in a time of drought to shoot a rain arrow into the sky, into the heavens, to bring his people's prayers to their gods so that they would get rain," said Anne Brockman, Gilcrease Museum public information officer.

The sculpture has been on display at Gilcrease since 1988 or 1989, she said. It is at the front entrance to the museum, she said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Sacred_Rain_Arrow_image_picked_for_new_plates/20080802_16_a1_spancl454650

The Plaintiff states:

The sculpture depicts an Indian shooting an arrow skyward to bring down rain. Cressman's [the Plaintiff's] lawsuit alleged that the sculpture is based on a Native American legend in which a warrior convinced a medicine man to bless his bow and arrows during a time of drought. The warrior shot an arrow into the sky, hoping the "spirit world" or "rain god" would answer the people's prayers for rain.

http://gazette.com/court-man-can-challenge-oklahoma-rain-god-plate/article/feed/12505

So the suit does have merit, it should at least be heard.   As the 10th Circuit Stated:

In sum, Mr. Cressman has plausibly alleged that the image on the standard Oklahoma license plate conveys a particularized message that others would likely understand and therefore constitutes symbolic speech that qualifies for First Amendment protection. In addition, he has plausibly alleged that he is compelled to speak because the image conveys a religious/ideological message, covering up the image poses a threat of prosecution, and his only alternative to displaying the image is to pay additional fees for specialty license plates that do not contain the image.

Full opinion here:  http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-6151.pdf
Copy of the Petition/Complaint here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-6151.pdf


Is shooting an arrow into the sky an actual prayer in some Native American tradition, or is it a fanciful depiction?  Is it an image depicting Oklahoma's Native American culture, or is the image inextricably to religion.  If it is inextricably linked to religion and can be seen as a state endorsement of that religion - it has to go.  However, it seems to me a Christian, Atheist, Jew, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Muslim, or a Native American can shoot an arrow into the sky with no religious meaning at all (ie., if the description marks a particular thing as religious, but the image itself does not, is it inherently religious? If "Washington Crossing the Delaware" was renamed "Washington praying while crossing the Delaware" is it all of a sudden a religious icon?).  I never knew it was supposed to have a religious meaning - and I still don't know if it really does or if an artist was being artsy.

The bible references arrows and shooting arrows repeatedly, would a different statute description make it a Christian icon?
http://www.bible-topics.com/Arrows.html


A good write up is presented here:
http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2013/06/tenth-circuit-says-man-can-sue-over-image-on-license-plates-.html

The opinion discusses whether the display of the license plate constitutes "symbolic speech" that qualifies for First Amendment protection, and whether it conveys a "particularized message." Symbolic speech claims, the court said, "depend on circumstances and context."

"Perhaps few viewers of the Oklahoma license plate image would perceive the particularized message Mr. Cressman alleges. But at this stage, without any evidentiary development, we must accept his allegations otherwise as true," the opinion states.

The circuit held that Cressman has also "plausibly alleged that he is compelled to speak because the image conveys a religious/ideological message, covering up the image poses a threat of prosecution, and his only alternative to displaying the image is to pay additional fees for specialty license plates that do not contain the image."

Cressman, the panel court concluded, "has alleged sufficient facts to suggest that the 'Sacred Rain Arrow' image on the standard Oklahoma license plate conveys a particularized message that others are likely to understand and to which he objects."

I like the image and hope it isn't changed.  I agree with the dissent:

Native American culture is an integral part of the history of Oklahoma and the United States. Indeed, the name "Oklahoma" comes from two Choctaw words meaning "red people."3  Oklahoma has decided to  acknowledge its history by portraying a Native American cultural image on its license plate and promoting "Native America." Without more, Mr. Cressman's allegation that others are likely to perceive an ideological message based upon the image—as opposed to a historical or cultural message—lacks facial plausibility.

Moreover, the compelled speech doctrine never was intended to displace  governmental choices in favor of complete personal autonomy. Otherwise, aesthetics-based challenges would not be far away. Suppose one objected to the selection of a particular artist's work or a certain color scheme? No one would suggest a First Amendment right to override the choices made by the state on these grounds. Because I conclude that Mr. Cressman has failed to nudge his complaint across the line from possible to plausible, see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the district court's order dismissing Mr. Cressman's complaint.

[Conan71]

Does it have legal merit?  Apparently.

Does it warrant multiple face palms? Absolutely!

[BKDotCom]

what this guy sees:   state sponsored religion
what everyone else sees:   Oklahoma has an "indian" on their license tag... seems like logical imagery
    when everyone is told that Native American in said picture is performing a prayer.   huh?

seems like this is along the lines of a sexual harassment suit.
Can Bill or Sue feel like they've been harassed without actually being harrassed?  absolutely.
But does it meet this criteria?:
"The harassment would detrimentally effect a reasonable person of the same sex."

Does this tag "detrimentally effect" anyone else?
No.   And we're in the bible belt!   Every elected bureaucrat is sworn person of faith.

[custosnox]

This.

The image on Oklahoma's license plate is of a statute by Allen Houser, called "Sacred Rain Arrow."  As you know it is currently housed at Gilrease.

Per the description:
http://www.csfineartscenter.org/collection-spotlight/houser-sacred.asp

or this one:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Sacred_Rain_Arrow_image_picked_for_new_plates/20080802_16_a1_spancl454650

The Plaintiff states:
http://gazette.com/court-man-can-challenge-oklahoma-rain-god-plate/article/feed/12505

So the suit does have merit, it should at least be heard.   As the 10th Circuit Stated:
Full opinion here:  http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-6151.pdf
Copy of the Petition/Complaint here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-6151.pdf


Is shooting an arrow into the sky an actual prayer in some Native American tradition, or is it a fanciful depiction?  Is it an image depicting Oklahoma's Native American culture, or is the image inextricably to religion.  If it is inextricably linked to religion and can be seen as a state endorsement of that religion - it has to go.  However, it seems to me a Christian, Atheist, Jew, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Muslim, or a Native American can shoot an arrow into the sky with no religious meaning at all (ie., if the description marks a particular thing as religious, but the image itself does not, is it inherently religious? If "Washington Crossing the Delaware" was renamed "Washington praying while crossing the Delaware" is it all of a sudden a religious icon?).  I never knew it was supposed to have a religious meaning - and I still don't know if it really does or if an artist was being artsy.

The bible references arrows and shooting arrows repeatedly, would a different statute description make it a Christian icon?
http://www.bible-topics.com/Arrows.html


A good write up is presented here:
http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2013/06/tenth-circuit-says-man-can-sue-over-image-on-license-plates-.html

I like the image and hope it isn't changed.  I agree with the dissent:

thanks for the extra info. I haven't had time to really look at it and had been going in the description that it depicted a native American rain god (the only need article I had been able to read on the matter). Given what you have presented, I withdraw any sort on the issue.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

[TheArtist]

  Could Muslims be offended if the State published an image of a woman's face on something like a license plate and then file a lawsuit?  Or an image of anything for that matter. 


Had a potential client get offended once when I did a sketch for a mural and it had a stone gazebo like the one in the garden in Philbrook.  She said it was a "pagan temple" and was an affront to her as a Christian. I run into stuff like that all the time, just smile and say "ok", and come up with something else.

[DolfanBob]

Pay for you're current tag and tax. Pay 50 Dollars for a personalised tag. Boom! Done.

[carltonplace]

A half naked guy with a bow and arrow is a religious icon?

I bet this guy has a sh**fit when he sees depictions of Eros at Valentine's

[custosnox]

 Could Muslims be offended if the State published an image of a woman's face on something like a license plate and then file a lawsuit?  Or an image of anything for that matter. 


Had a potential client get offended once when I did a sketch for a mural and it had a stone gazebo like the one in the garden in Philbrook.  She said it was a "pagan temple" and was an affront to her as a Christian. I run into stuff like that all the time, just smile and say "ok", and come up with something else.

it's really not a matter of if someone gets offended.  Screw people who get offended over stupid crap.  It's about ensuring the state upholds the restrictions it has on endorsing a religion.  Though I no longer think that this qualifies as an endorsement of a religion, since the original piece was not religious in nature, but was a cultural piece that hinted towards the religion that cannot be separated from that culture.

[patric]

A half naked guy with a bow and arrow nailed to a cross is a religious icon?

I bet this guy has a sh**fit when he sees depictions of Eros at Valentine's

Or car commercials...

[Gaspar]

it's really not a matter of if someone gets offended.  Screw people who get offended over stupid crap.  It's about ensuring the state upholds the restrictions it has on endorsing a religion.  Though I no longer think that this qualifies as an endorsement of a religion, since the original piece was not religious in nature, but was a cultural piece that hinted towards the religion that cannot be separated from that culture.

You have identified the point.

We are made of many religions (and philosophical points of view), and those are part of the foundation of our culture and history.  It would be nearly impossible, and frankly sad if government was prevented from acknowledging culture and history because it may be perceived as sponsorship of religion.  We are far from the Edict of Milan, and our interpretation of freedom of religion continues threatened by those who want freedom from religion or freedom from other people's religion (or lack thereof). 

Like any other belief system (or lack thereof) those who are offended by other religions (Christians, Muslims, Pagens, and atheists) have no right to oppress, or censor the culture or history of a people just because it is intrinsically linked to a belief system that they do not accept.  Our government is banned from establishing a religion, but it is not banned from acknowledging its existence, on the contrary, it is the government's responsibility to protect the rights of the individual, including their practice of religion, and to do so, it mush offer some recognition.       

A couple of years ago, when my daughter was in Kindergarden, we visited her class room for an event of some kind.  Wrapping around the top of the classroom was a laminated border that had important dates of the year on it.  Included were cultural images of people related to those dates.  Washington's birthday had Washingtons portrait on it. MLK day had MLK's picture.   August showed Ramadan with an image of a young boy in traditional Muslim dress. September featured Diwali with a picture of a young Hindu girl. Veterans day had a soldier, and Easter had a bunny.  December featured Hanukah with a menorah, and Kwanza had a young African-American woman holding a bundle of corn.   I don't think anyone was offended by any of those images.  I was a bit puzzled that there was no imagery for Christmas though, but I understand because, after all, it is so controversial, and the company that provided the printed borders probably didn't want to jeopardize their contract with the government.  They did however offer a shout-out to Easter with the bunny, and that was nice, because that is of course what Easter is about.

Culture and religion are intrinsically linked.  If government has a desire to promote culture, it will naturally end up touching on religion.  There will always be those who will want to elevate themselves or their beliefs by diminishing the same for others.  These are small people who feel threatened, or who feel that their faith (or lack thereof) is somehow threatened.  For them this deflection is very important, because it keeps them from addressing a weakness in faith or a weakness of mind, and in many cases both.  So they take up the misguided mantle of protecting their God from your God (or lack thereof).  The battle is thousands of years old.

Government gets caught in the middle.  The alternative is to remove cultural programs from government and attempt to sanitize our history.

[custosnox]

You have identified the point.

We are made of many religions (and philosophical points of view), and those are part of the foundation of our culture and history.  It would be nearly impossible, and frankly sad if government was prevented from acknowledging culture and history because it may be perceived as sponsorship of religion.  We are far from the Edict of Milan, and our interpretation of freedom of religion continues threatened by those who want freedom from religion or freedom from other people's religion (or lack thereof). 

Like any other belief system (or lack thereof) those who are offended by other religions (Christians, Muslims, Pagens, and atheists) have no right to oppress, or censor the culture or history of a people just because it is intrinsically linked to a belief system that they do not accept.  Our government is banned from establishing a religion, but it is not banned from acknowledging its existence, on the contrary, it is the government's responsibility to protect the rights of the individual, including their practice of religion, and to do so, it mush offer some recognition.       

A couple of years ago, when my daughter was in Kindergarden, we visited her class room for an event of some kind.  Wrapping around the top of the classroom was a laminated border that had important dates of the year on it.  Included were cultural images of people related to those dates.  Washington's birthday had Washingtons portrait on it. MLK day had MLK's picture.   August showed Ramadan with an image of a young boy in traditional Muslim dress. September featured Diwali with a picture of a young Hindu girl. Veterans day had a soldier, and Easter had a bunny.  December featured Hanukah with a menorah, and Kwanza had a young African-American woman holding a bundle of corn.   I don't think anyone was offended by any of those images.  I was a bit puzzled that there was no imagery for Christmas though, but I understand because, after all, it is so controversial, and the company that provided the printed borders probably didn't want to jeopardize their contract with the government.  They did however offer a shout-out to Easter with the bunny, and that was nice, because that is of course what Easter is about.

Culture and religion are intrinsically linked.  If government has a desire to promote culture, it will naturally end up touching on religion.  There will always be those who will want to elevate themselves or their beliefs by diminishing the same for others.  These are small people who feel threatened, or who feel that their faith (or lack thereof) is somehow threatened.  For them this deflection is very important, because it keeps them from addressing a weakness in faith or a weakness of mind, and in many cases both.  So they take up the misguided mantle of protecting their God from your God (or lack thereof).  The battle is thousands of years old.

Government gets caught in the middle.  The alternative is to remove cultural programs from government and attempt to sanitize our history.

There is no doubt that religions have been intertwined in much of our culture, and we would be remiss to try and pretend it wasn't, but it should be kept in context.  That does not mean that there should be any endorsement of any religion by the government.  If the government issued, default plate had an overt religious symbol, such as a cross, it would be hard to argue cultural significance instead of religious endorsement.  Oh, and Easter is far more about bunnies, historically speaking, than anything Christian.