A Response to R.A.V v City of St. Paul Case Study

A Response to R.A.V v City of St. Paul - Case Study Example The court case of R.A.V v. city of St. Paul would have revised the definition of the hate speech guided by the provisions of the First Amendment. The court should have convicted the white teenager based on the injury caused by burning a cross in front of a black family’s residence. The act was injurious in nature based on Butler’s argument that any speech or act with elements that imply hate or racism should be prosecuted. The cross was the fighting symbol that the plaintiff used to arouse anger and resentment to the black family. The misdemeanor caused by the white teenager would have been by the trial court for prosecution instead of dismissing the charge. Butler is convinced that the act of cross burning amounts to hate speech and should not be protected by the constitution. Additionally, the decision by the court to include the provisions of the First Amendment to dismiss the case was irrelevant. The Minnesota court would have ruled in favor of the City of St. Paul instead of dismissing the destructiveness of cross burning (Butler, 2013). The court ruling can be used by racists to conduct heinous act against other community guided by the protection of speech in the constitution. The court decision would have been based on the historical accounts that relate to cross-burning. The act has been used before to carry out racist attacks black families in the United States. Butler established that the court was wrong because it failed to consider past cases of cross burning. She felt that the act itself contained a threat that could be prosecuted in court. Butler felt that the constitution should have included cross burning in the list of fires (Butler, 2013). The court ruling would have prosecuted the teenager based on the definition of fire in RAV v. St. Paul case. The ruling would pave the way for amendments in the way the constitution protects citizens’ free speech.  Ã‚