This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Petitioner sought to legally change his name to "Fuck Censorship!" as a political statement. The district court denied the request, citing that the proposed name was obscene, offensive, and inconsistent with common decency (paras 2, 5).
Procedural History
- District Court, Nan G. Nash, Judge: Denied the Petitioner’s request for a name change, finding the proposed name obscene, offensive, and not in line with common decency (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Petitioner): Argued that he has a right to call himself whatever he wishes under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He claimed that denying his name change request constituted improper government censorship (para 3).
- Respondent (District Court Judge): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the denial of the Petitioner’s name change request infringed on his First Amendment right to free speech.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the Petitioner’s name change request (para 8).
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Judge (Jonathan B. Sutin, Chief Judge, and Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge, concurring):
The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the name change request. It reasoned that while the Petitioner has a common law right to assume any name absent fraud or misrepresentation, a statutory name change requires court approval, which subjects the request to judicial scrutiny (paras 4, 6). The Court emphasized that the state has the authority to limit name changes that are offensive, obscene, or inconsistent with common decency and good taste (paras 2, 6).
The Court rejected the Petitioner’s First Amendment argument, stating that the denial of the statutory name change did not infringe on his free speech rights. The Petitioner retains the common law right to use the name informally without state approval. However, seeking the state’s imprimatur through a statutory process allows the court to impose reasonable restrictions (paras 4-5, 7). The Court cited precedent, including In re Mokiligon and Lee v. Ventura County Superior Court, to support its conclusion that the state is not obligated to participate in or endorse a name change that is offensive or obscene (paras 2, 5-6).