On April 7, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a California law that bans honking car horns, except when needed to warn of a safety hazard. The ruling came in response to a citation issued to Susan Porter for honking her horn in support of protesters.
Porter argued that the law violated her First Amendment rights, stating that the regulation was content-based and not tailored narrowly enough to serve a compelling government interest. Specifically, Porter honked her horn in three clusters of short beeps, amounting to 14 beeps.
However, the majority of the appeals court found no violation of the First Amendment in a 2-1 decision. In the majority opinion, Judge Michelle T. Friedland, an former President Barack Obama appointee, stated that horn honking could carry a message in some circumstances, and the honking law bans some expressive content. However, the appeals court found that the law draws a line based on the factual situation rather than the content of the expression, making it a content-neutral law.
Friedland added that the law “does not single out for differential treatment, for example, political honking, ideological honking, celebratory honking, or honking to summon a carpool rider… Instead, the law ‘applies evenhandedly to all who wish to’ use the horn when a safety hazard is not present.”
Ready to make a change in your legal career? BCG Attorney Search can help you find the perfect job.
The 9th Circuit concluded that the law was narrowly tailored to further California’s interest in safety and satisfied the First Amendment. The state had relied on testimony from a 24-year police veteran who stated that improper use of a horn could startle or distract drivers and others and that the usefulness of a horn as a warning device would be diminished if officers could not enforce the law.
The appeals court agreed with the state’s position, citing that the more horns are used for non-warning purposes, the fewer people can rely on the sound as an alert to imminent danger. The appeals court referenced an oft-told tale, “The Shepherd Boy and the Wolf,” from Aesop’s Fables to support this argument.
However, Judge Marsha S. Berzon dissented and believed the law violated the First Amendment. She argued that the law was not narrowly tailored enough to exclude political protest honking from the banned conduct.
Berzon’s dissent highlights a key debate in First Amendment jurisprudence: balancing free speech rights with other vital societal interests. In this case, the majority of the appeals court believed that safety concerns outweighed the expressive value of honking a car horn.
The ruling has potential implications for free speech rights in public spaces. It establishes that the government can regulate honking a car horn if the regulation is content-neutral and narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. The ruling also clarifies that horn honking can carry a message in some circumstances and that the First Amendment does protect expressive content in some forms of honking.
Overall, the 9th Circuit’s decision is likely controversial, with some viewing it as a necessary measure to ensure safety on the roads and others seeing it as an infringement on their free speech rights. It remains to be seen if this decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court for further review.
