505 U.S. 377 (1992)
R.A.V. v.
Does the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance violate the First Amendment by criminalizing speech on the basis of its content?
The First Amendment prohibits laws that restrict speech based on its content unless the speech falls into a few narrowly proscribed categories (e.g., obscenity, defamation, incitement). Even within these categories, regulations cannot discriminate based on viewpoint.
The Supreme Court held that the St. Paul ordinance was unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech by engaging in content discrimination. The ordinance was deemed overbroad and impermissibly targeted speech based solely on disfavored content.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul is a landmark decision in First Amendment jurisprudence because it clarified the boundaries of content-based restrictions on speech. The decision reinforced the principle that even hate speech enjoys protection under the First Amendment unless it translates into specific, unprotected categories like direct incitement to violence. For law students, the case serves as a foundational study of content neutrality and viewpoint discrimination, critical concepts for understanding how free speech is adjudicated in American law.