ABSTRACT
In two recent cases, the Supreme Court has reconsidered the distinction between protected and unprotected speech in relation to the phenomenon of “hate speech.” Are certain forms of invidious speech to be construed as “fighting words:” and if so, are they appropriately considered to be a kind of speech unprotected by the first Amendment? In the first case, R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992), the ordinance in question was one passed by the St. Paul City Council in 1990, and read in part as follows:
Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning
race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
