RAV v. St. Paul Case Flashcards

Questions and Answers

The defendant in RAV v. St. Paul was ___.

R.A.V

What did the city of St. Louis charge RAV with?

Conduct harmful on the basis of race

What was the final verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court in RAV v. St. Paul?

The case was dismissed

The ordinance is unconstitutional (correct)

The ordinance was constitutional

Content-based restrictions are valid

What year did RAV v. St. Paul take place?

1992 Signup and view all the answers

Why is the assembly of a cross important in RAV v. St. Paul?

It shows it was premeditated Signup and view all the answers

What does the bias-motivated crime ordinance prohibit?

Display of symbols that could cause anger or resentment based on race, creed, etc. Signup and view all the answers

The local ordinance in RAV v. St. Paul was ruled too specific.

False Signup and view all the answers

What is the objective of the bias-motivated crime ordinance?

To address fighting words Signup and view all the answers

What is 'amicus curiae' in the context of RAV v. St. Paul?

Brief filed by many attorneys general expressing concern about the case's impact Signup and view all the answers

What did the Virginia v. Black case rule regarding cross burning?

Unconstitutional because it imposed burden of proof on the defendant Signup and view all the answers

Cross burning is always considered a criminal act.

False Signup and view all the answers

What did the NJ Supreme Court do in 1994 regarding laws on symbolic speech?

Reluctantly struck down law imposing harsher penalties Signup and view all the answers

When can cross burnings be outlawed according to SCOTUS?

When used as tools of terror Signup and view all the answers

What was the decision in Virginia v. Black?

7-2 in favor of protecting cross burning Signup and view all the answers

What is the constitutional question in Virginia v. Black?

Is extreme symbolic speech like cross burning constitutional? Signup and view all the answers

Who expressed a dissenting opinion in Virginia v. Black?

Clarence Thomas Signup and view all the answers

What falls under defamation?

Slander and libel Signup and view all the answers

What are time, place, and manner restrictions?

Regulations on when and where speech can occur Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

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.

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.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

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.