Fact: A cross, assembled with broken chair legs and tape, was affixed in the yard of a black family and then set on fire. The defendant was a juvenile who lived across the street, and had carried this out with some friends in the predawn hours of June 21, 1990. The city of St. Paul decided to prosecute under the "St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which basically says that constructing an offensive symbol in public is a misdemeanor. The defendant had this dismissed in the lower courts, stating that the definition of "offensive" was too broad, and pleading the First Amendment. This decision was reversed by the Minnesota Supreme Court, saying that it was classified under "fighting words" which had been upheld in prior cases. In turn, the US Supreme Court ruled that the defendant was not guilty, as no threat was made but simply a statement of belief. They did, however, state "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible.".
Issue: The issue was whether or not "fighting words" could be expressed through actions, and if the St. Paul ordinance was specific enough. Perhaps the defendant could have been tried for trespassing, burning without a permit, or even vandalism. This might have made it easier to prosecute, but it did help to examine St. Paul's regulations.
Significance: This case is significant because it helped to establish a better definition of offensive, and what extent a person can go to while remaining protected by the first Amendment of freedom of belief.