Law case study writing -hao

User Generated

znttvrznttvr

Business Finance

Description

This is a law case writing work. My case is : R.A.V v. City of St Paul. (hate speech)

Need full 4 pages. cited all resources, and not be plagiarize.


User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello, review the attached document and contact me in case you need any changes. Otherwise, good luck in your study and if you need any further help in your assignments, please let me know. Always invite me to answer your questions.

Surname 1

Name
Instructor’s name
Course code
Date
R.A.V v. City of St Paul Case Analysis
There is a need to understand that one of the legal issues which has continued to be
highly contestable even in the current age is the freedom of expression, and its limits. How far is
too far when one is expressing themselves? One of the cases that offers this insight is the R.A.V
v. City of St Paul which has been debated on its interpretation of the freedom of expression, and
its implications moving forward.
Background of the case
The petitioner allegedly burned a cross on a lawn that belonged to a black family.
Therefore, the accused would be charged under an inter alia, St. Paul, Minnesota, Bias Motivated
Crime Ordinance, which among other has restrictions. One of the prohibitions under the law is
that one should not display symbols with awareness that it “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in
others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender” (Amar, 124). The trial court would
dismiss the case on the basis that the provisions of the law were broad, and the content was
impressible. However, the State Supreme Court would argue that the se grounds were
insufficient to throw away the case, because the symbolic action was likely to cause anger and
resentment in the targeted community. The State Supreme Court would go and quote the

Surname 2
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,315 U.S. 568, 572, and therefore the “ordinance was not
impermissibly content-based, because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
governmental interest in protecting the community against bias-motivated threats to public safety
and order”. It is imperative to mention that the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance
explicitly states that “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…”
(Amar, 124) and therefore, the petitioner had been found culpable under the provisions of the
law. The Supreme Court of Minnesota would then go and argue that the statute was protecting
what can be said as ‘fighting words’ and thus is not liable for protection under the First
Amendment.
Analysis
The Supreme Court would go and dismiss the case against the petitioner, and raise some
interesting points regarding the use of speech. One of the major points is that the approach which
had been used to convict was too simplistic. For instance, the court, while giving an opinion gave
an analogy of the city government. First the First Amendment does not under any circumstances
give instances in which the government can seek to regulate the freedom of expression among its
citizen. The city government, under such an arrangement can give a provision that speech can
only be allowed if it does not criticize its work, and this gives an all-or-nothing approach to the
Fi...


Anonymous
Awesome! Perfect study aid.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags