Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The Court held that the ordinance is facially unconstitutional. “Although DISPOSITIVE
the phrase in the ordinance, ‘arouses anger, alarm or resentment in
others,’ has been limited by the Minnesota Supreme Court's construction The judgment of the Minnesota Supreme Court is reversed, and the case
to reach only those symbols or displays that amount to ‘fighting words,’ is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
the remaining, unmodified terms make clear that the ordinance applies
It is so ordered.
only to ‘fighting words’ that insult, or provoke violence, ‘on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion or gender.’ Displays containing abusive SEPARATE OPINIONS
invective, no matter how vicious or severe, are permissible unless they
are addressed to one of the specified disfavored topics. Those who wish Justice White, concurring in the result: He said he would have decided
to use ‘fighting words’ in connection with other ideas – to express the issue on overbreadth grounds, adding that the “Court has disregarded
hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union two established principles of First Amendment law without providing a
membership, or homosexuality – are not covered. The First Amendment coherent replacement theory.”2
does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers
who express views on disfavored subjects.” Justice Blackmun, concurring: He noted that by forbidding categorization
of prohibited speech, as the Court has done here, the Court weakens
The Court also assailed the Ordinance’s selectivity, singling out certain First Amendment protections in other instances.3
types of expression for prohibition. “The reason why fighting words are
categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not Justice Stevens concurring in the result: He found the reasoning used to
reach the decision was incorrect. Specifically, the concurrence argued that
that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their
the majority is essentially stating that a government is only able to
content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) proscribe all speech or no speech at all to come within the confines of
mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey. St. Paul the First Amendment (finding that content-based restrictions are
has not singled out an especially offensive mode of expression – it has presumptively invalid). He said First Amendment jurisprudence is not
not, for example, selected for prohibition only those fighting words that
communicate ideas in a threatening (as opposed to a merely obnoxious)
manner. Rather, it has proscribed fighting words of whatever
2 Accessed at https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/r-v-v-city-st-
manner that communicate messages of racial, gender, or religious paul/
intolerance. Selectivity of this sort creates the possibility that the 3 Ibid.
that inflexible.4
4 Ibid.