Реферат: Mitchell V Wisconsin Essay Research Paper

R.A.V. v. St. Paul, is the concurring opinion written by Justice

White, with whom Justice Blackmun and Justice O?Connor join.

White writes, ?Although the ordinance as construed reaches egories of

speech that are constitutionally unprotected, it also criminalizes a

substantial amount of expression that- however repugnant- is shielded

by the First Admendment… Our fighting words cases have made clear,

however, that such generalized reactions are not sufficient to strip

expression of its constitutional protection. The mere fact that

expressive activity causes hurt feelings, offense, or resentment does

not render the expression unprotected… The ordinance is therefore

fatally overbroad and invalid on its face…?

Rehnquist argues that whereas the ?ordinance struck down in R.A.V.

was explicitly directed at expression, the statute in this case is

aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment?. Nevertheless,

had Mitchell not stated, ?There goes a white boy; go get him?, his

sentence would not have been enhanced, he would have instead received

the maximum sentence of two years in jail for his crime, instead of

four. Therefore, the Wisconsin statute does not only punish conduct,

as Justice Rehnquist suggests, but speech as well.

The Wisconsin v. Mitchell decision cannot simply be viewed as one

that does harm to racists and homophobics. There are much broader

costs to society than the quieted opinions of an ignorant few.

First, laws which chill thought or limit expression ?detract from the

goal of insuring the availability of the broadest possible range of

ideas and expressions in the marketplace of ideas.? Second, the

Mitchell ruling not only affects eveyone?s free speech rights with a

general constriction of the interpretation of the First Amendment, but

the ruling makes way for further constrictions. Third, penalty

enhancement laws place the legislature in the position of judging and