Name: ______________________________________________ Date: _______________ Period: _____
Law in American Society
Hate Speech
Case #1: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1991)
Facts:
In the early morning hours of June 21, 1990, in the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, a group of
teenagers created a cross out of a broken chair, stuck it into the ground in the yard of the house
across the street, in which an African family was staying and then lit the cross on fire.
At that time, there was a city ordinance which stated: “Whoever places on public or private
property a symbol, object...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 teenagers were charged with violating the city ordinance. In response, the teens said that
the ordinance violated their first amendment rights to freedom of speech.
Legal Issue:
At issue is whether the city of St. Paul violated R.A.V’s right to free speech when they
created a city ordinance that prohibited hate speech
Holding:
The ordinance violates the First Amendment because “it prohibits otherwise permitted speech
solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses.” The First Amendment prevents
government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas
expressed. Under the ordinance, for example, one could hold up a sign declaring all antisemites are bastards but not that all Jews are bastards. Government has no authority “to
license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis
of Queensbury Rules.”
--www.oyez.com/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675
Name: ______________________________________________ Date: _______________ Period: _____
Case #2: Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993)
Facts:
In 1989, a young black man named Todd Mitchell, was walking with friends discussing a
scene from the movie, Mississippi Burning, in which a white man beat a black boy who was
praying. The group was getting riled up and Mitchell asked the group, “Do you all feel hyped
up to move on some white peoples?”
Across the street Mitchell saw Gregory Reddick, a white 14 year-old, walking home.
Mitchell and nine of his friends encircled Reddick, kicking, punching, and stomping on him
for about 5 minutes, leaving Reddick unconscious and nearly dead. He remained in a coma for
4 days but eventually recovered from all injuries.
Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery. His jail sentence was then lengthened under a
Wisconsin statute which allowed for increased sentences when a defendant “intentionally
selects the person against whom the crime...is committed...because of the race, religion, color,
disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person...”
Mitchell appealed his 4 year jail sentence, on the grounds that the statute under which he was
sentenced violated his 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech.
Legal Issue:
At issue is whether Wisconsin violated Mitchell’s right to free speech when they created a
statute lengthening a sentence due to the motivation behind the crime.
Holding:
The Court held that Wisconsin’s law served the same purpose as federal anti-discrimination
laws. Whereas, in R.A.V., the ordinance struck down was explicitly targeted at expression, the
statute in this case was directed towards conduct that was not expressive as such, but was
instead directed at violence in particular. Moreover, Wisconsin was within its rights to offer
sentence enhancement in bias-motivated crime because it had a compelling interest in
preventing the negative secondary effects of such crimes.
Instructions: Using the cases of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and Wisconsin v. Mitchell, evaluate
the below case (based loosely off of the case of Snyder v. Phelps), and determine how a court
would decide the case.
Relevant Facts:
On March 3, 2006, U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in a noncombat-related vehicle accident in Iraq. On March 10, Westboro Baptist Church (WBC)
picketed Snyder’s funeral in Maryland from a distance of 100 yards from the service, as it had
done at thousands of other funerals throughout the U.S., in protest of what they considered
America’s increasing tolerance of homosexuality. Picketers displayed placards such as
“America is doomed,” “You’re going to hell,” “God hates you,” “Thank God for dead soldiers.”
Maryland had a law that was recently enacted in response to the WBC protests, and which
banned individuals from displaying any signs commenting on sexual orientation outside of
funerals. The members of the WBC were prosecuted for violating the Maryland law, and the
WBC responded that the law violated their rights under the first amendment.
Name: ______________________________________________ Date: _______________ Period: _____
Law in American Society
Hate Speech - Legal Analysis
Instructions: Using the cases of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and Wisconsin v. Mitchell, evaluate
the below case (based loosely off of the case of Snyder v. Phelps), and determine how a court
would decide the case.
What is the Legal Issue?
At issue is whether ________________violated ______________ right to__________________
RESPONDANT (government)
PETITIONER
DISPUTED RIGHT
when he/she/they _______________________________________________________________.
DISPUTED ACTION
What is the applicable law?
(First state the law...) The ________________ Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides
# OF
______________________________________________________________________________
DISPUTED RIGHT
(Then, you are going to add additional information from the tests and precedents to help us
understand this particular case... So, add relevant language from the decision of Miller v.
California).
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Now apply the law to the case of Westboro Baptist v. Maryland and use your legal reasoning to
explain how the court should decide this case.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________