RAV v. St. Paul Case Flashcards

RAV v. St. Paul Overview

• A case involving defendant R.A.V (three minors) who burned a cross made of broken chair legs on a neighbor's property, targeting black neighbors.
• Year of the incident: 1992.

Charges and Ordinance

• The City of St. Louis charged RAV under an ordinance that prohibits harmful conduct based on race.
• The St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance aimed to prevent displays that could provoke anger based on race, creed, religion, and gender.

Court Proceedings and Rulings

• RAV argued that the ordinance was overbroad and impermissibly content-based, leading the trial court to grant a favorable ruling for RAV.
• The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the decision, claiming the ordinance was specific enough.
• The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled unanimously (9-0) that content-based restrictions are unconstitutional, affirming that punishing based on content limits free speech. The ordinance was struck down for both being overbroad and content-based.

Important Legal Principles

• Cross burning was examined as evidence of premeditated action rather than spontaneous behavior.
• Fighting words, which can breach peace, were central to discussions on the limits of free speech.
• The constitutionality of the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was challenged because it targeted specific messages rather than actions.

Related Case: Virginia v. Black

• In 2003, Virginia v. Black involved three individuals convicted of violating Virginia's cross burning ordinance, which targeted intimidation through cross burning.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional as it unfairly placed the burden of proof on defendants.

Cross Burning Distinctions

• Cross burning may be classified as either protected political speech or a criminal act of intimidation, with context dictating its legal status.
• SCOTUS determined that cross burnings can be regulated when intended as acts of terror.

NJ Supreme Court Decision

• In 1994, the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down a law imposing harsher penalties on swastikas or burning crosses, influenced by the RAV case ruling.
• Despite the decision, NJ Attorney General sought reconsideration to protect citizens against hate speech.

Legal Concepts

• Dissenting opinions, such as Clarence Thomas's, often reflect developmentalism and interpretations of speech context.
• Historical precedent involved tests like the "clear and present danger" and "incitement test" to assess when speech could lead to unlawful activities.

Key Terminology

• Fighting Words: Direct, face-to-face communication likely to provoke violence and do not enrich public debate.
• Defamation: Includes slander (spoken) and libel (written).
• Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions: Considerations for lawful speech based on venue and circumstance.

Explore key concepts and facts from the RAV v. St. Paul case with these flashcards. Each card covers important terminology, charges, and court rulings that shaped the outcome of this landmark case. Perfect for law students or anyone interested in legal studies.