Paul, Minnesota, a group of teenagers (R.) built a cross out of broken chair legs. The cross was then placed in a yard owned by a black family and set on fire. R.A.V. was charged under the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which forbids anyone to "arouse anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed or gender." R.A.V., however, was not convicted because the court ruled the law was unconstitutional on the basis that the law was "overbroad and dependent on content." The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the decision, but the case moved on to the Supreme Court of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court then reversed the decision saying the ordinance violated the rights granted by the First Amendment. However, the actions committed by R.A.V. seem too similar to the actions of the KKK. The symbolism between the KKK burning crosses and R.A.V. burning crosses is obvious. The actions committed by R.A.V. are clearly a hate crime, and therefore he should have been justly punished for it. Free speech ends when it harms another person. .
The intent of their actions is not mentioned, but it seems clear they acted out of hatred. It does not seem like these teenagers played a joke on this family because they were bored on a Friday night. Their actions seem to be thought out and planned before hand. It could be seen that the teenagers just had bad luck and the yard happened to be owned by a black family, but the possibility of this being an accident seems too coincidental. Too much effort and work was put into this act to just be a prank. This is clearly a hate crime, and R.A.V. should have been punished for it. .
Their actions were not just "fighting words" that might offend someone, but they were a direct threat to the family. The actions were not just a protest or "fighting words", but they were used to directly target and threaten the family to cause whatever harm they could.
