St. Paul Hate Speech Law
“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, religion, or gender
commits disorderly conduct and shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor.” St. Paul MN Legis.
Code, Section 292.02 (1990)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul




The odious crime
The trial court results
The appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Ct.
On to Washington: The Supreme Court



Decision, 9-0
When is unanimous not unanimous?
The next logical step…What about hate
crime penalty enhancements? Wisconsin
v. Mitchell (1993)
Arguments in favor of
regulating hate speech






Demonstrates an organizational
commitment to diversity and respect
Hate speech is not a mere insult
Bad ideas exist; can be regulated
The 1st amendment shouldn’t trump 14th
Hate speech silences other voices,
regulation enhances free speech
Universities have a special responsibility to
make all feel welcome
Arguments against regulating
hate speech





A policy will chill other “non-hate” speech
A policy will drive hate underground
A policy stigmatizes people as “victims”
who must be protected
A policy will ultimately be turned on those
it was meant to protect
A policy makes content distinctions on
speech and leads to further censorship
(Doe v. University of Michigan)