R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 7:34PM Read the opinion here.
Issue. Does a St. Paul Ordinance that criminalizes speech that would arouse anger, alarm or resentment on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender violate the First Amendment right to free speech?
Background. An individual burned a crudely constructed cross in the yard of an African-American family. Prosecutors decided to charge the juvenile under the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance. The Ordinance provides:
Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The juvenile moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that the ordinance was substantially overbroad and impermissibly content-based. Therefore, the law was facially invalid under the First Amendment. St. Paul argued the law was nothing more than a valid restriction on "fighting words". The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the juvenile and struck down the ordinance.
Court's Analysis. The Court recognized that the First Amendment prevents government from proscribing speech or expressive conduct because of disapproval of the ideas expressed. (content-based regulation) It is okay for government to regulate narrow forms of expression (obscenity, "fighting words") but cannot single out particular ideas expressed within that form of expression. For example, the government could proscribe obscenity, but not just obscenity which is critical of the government. Likewise, the government can punish flag burning under an ordinance prohibiting outdoor fires, but not under an ordinance prohibiting the burning of a flag. Ultimately, the "government may not regulate use based on hostility - or favoritism - towards the underlying message expressed."
The St. Paul ordinance punished only "fighting words" on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender. It is not a general prohibition on "fighting words", just certain types. This is not permissible under the First Amendment.
Regardless, St. Paul argued that the law was narrowly tailored to sever compelling state interests. The Court rejected this argument. An ordinance not limited to the favored topics would have precisely the same beneficial effect. The only reason certain topics were included is a result of the city council's special hostility towards the particular biases singled out. Again, this is not permissible under the First Amendment.