Federal Court Rules Honking Your Horn Is Not Protected Free Speech

Image: Matt Masin (AP)

A woman in California has learned noisy actions with her vehicle are not protected free speech — specifically, honking your horn falls in the realm of safety, not free speech, The Monterey Herald reports.

Can You Get it With a Manual?

In case you missed it:

The issue started in 2017 when Oceanside resident Susan Porter drove past the offices of U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R). The protests had been going on outside of his office since the 2016 elections. As Porter drove by the protestors she honked her horn 14 times. Whether or not that was in support of or against the protestors is unknown. She ended up being ticketed for honking, the sheriff’s deputy citing her for “unreasonable use of a horn.”

The ticket was thrown out of traffic court after the deputy didn’t show, but that wasn’t enough for Porter. She filed a civil suit in 2018. She claimed that over a fear of being cited again for using her horn, she censored “herself by refraining from using her vehicle horn for expressive purposes, including but not limited to expressing support for political protests, rallies, or demonstrations.”

She also claimed that the citation for the excessive honking was an unlawful enforcement of California Vehicle Code 2700. This code states that “the driver of a motor vehicle when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation shall give audible warning with his horn.” Her argument was that excessive honking fell under the protection of her First Amendment free speech rights.

The state disagreed with Porter’s view. A district court ruled in favor of the state, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling. While a California Highway Patrol Officer arguing on behalf of the state said that using a vehicles horn in an improper way can create a dangerous situation, Judge Marsha Berzon took a more middle of the ground view. From The Herald:

The appeals court agreed that “at least some of the honking prohibited by Section 27001 is expressive for First Amendment purposes” and that Porter’s “expressive activity is being chilled.” The majority opinion, however, upheld the regulation concerning horn use, saying it “applies evenhandedly to all who wish to use a horn when a safety hazard is not present” and that it is “narrowly tailored to further California’s substantial interest in traffic safety.”

Judge Berzon cautioned against using the vehicle code to stop honking at political protests but admitted that it would be too vague of a ruling to try to enforce this on expressive honking.