R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1991)
- Docket
- 90-7675
- Decided
- 1991-01-01
Summary
Question: Is the ordinance overly broad and impermissibly content-based in violation of the First Amendment free speech clause? Conclusion: Yes. In a 9-to-0 vote, the justices held the ordinance invalid on its face 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 anti-semites 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."