R.A. and other teenagers allegedly made and burned a cross on the lawn of the black family that lived across the street.  R.A. was charged with disorderly conduct under the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance, which prohibits the displaying of symbols, objects, graffiti, etc. that one "knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in other on the basis or race, color, creed, religion, or gender."  The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the statute was not too broad and unallowably content based, and thereby not a violation of the First Amendment because the statute was limited to "fighting words" which are not constitutionally protected anyway.

The Court must adhere to the construction of the Minnesota Court, and we accept their ruling that the statute only pertains to "fighting words."  However, the statute is still a violation of the First Amendment because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses."  The statute discriminatorily places special regulations on those who espouse views on the protected subjects of "race, color, creed, religion or gender," while allowing other abusive speech that does not pertain to these topics.  This effectively amounts to content and viewpoint discrimination.  While this statute is unconstitutional, the action in question is reprehensible and subject to prosecution on other charges.

Significance:

This decision in no way endorses the burning of crosses as constitutionally protected.  The action is still subject to prosecution, this case simply found that this particular statute was unconstitutional because it discriminated on the basis of content.  So, laws protecting from violations of this nature must be worded and applied in a manner that is content neutral.

Copyright © The Religious Freedom Page.
Last modified 02/19/01