CRS 446 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Marquess Of Queensberry Rules, Antonin Scalia, Harry Blackmun

• School: Syracuse University
• Department: Communication and Rhet Studies
• Course: CRS 446
• Professor: Professor Greenky

Document Summary

Inside the fenced yard of a black family, (ross 7. 3): the city of st. paul charged r. a. v. under the st. paul bias-motivated. Paul ordinance was substantially overbroad and impermissibly content based and therefore facially invalid under the first amendment, (ross. The case was then appealed to the supreme court: issue before the court, the issue before the court is whether or not the st. paul statute infringed on r. a. v. "s first amendment rights. Minnesota supreme court"s decision (ross 7. 4): vote, 9-0, court decision reasoning, the court came to this conclusion by reasoning that hate speech can be. Quite expressive indeed, and that the city has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the marquis of queensbury rules, (ross 7. 8-7. 9). In other words, the court argued that the st. paul ordinance was unconstitutionally content based by targeting a particular type of speech and viewpoint.