The Ruling of R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Essays (university) of Federal Courts

Download The Ruling of R.A.V. v. St. Paul and more Essays (university) Federal Courts in PDF only on Docsity! The Ruling of R.A.V. v. St. Paul In Charles R. Lawrence’s report of the court case R.A.V. v. St. Paul, he analyzes the violation and injustice ruling of the Jones family. The family was subjected to racial discrimination and hatred of the cross-burning to demonstrate the town's atrocious views and beliefs about different races. The United States Supreme Court unlawfully overturned Jones’s court due to misconceptions of the First Amendment and its rights. Lawrence’s criticism of the methods the Supreme Court implemented to handle the cross-burning case is primarily the court’s perspective of the case to protect the rights of the First Amendment rather than the victims. The United States Supreme Court's foremost objective was to define and characterize the constitutional rights of “hate speech” and therefore disregarded the victim's experiences.1 The political affiliation of a threat and potential crime unnoticed by the Supreme Court reveals the profound cultural racism America embodies in its roots. The primary response is not to assist the victims but to provide excuses and reasonings for the offender. Therefore the voices of these minority groups will be suppressed and equality will be diminished. The phrase “disregard for the silenced voice of the victims” is utilized to portray the regulation the Supreme Court placed when managing the court case in refutation of the Jones family exploitation in relation to the title.2 The constitutional rights of the Jones family are not discussed in the hearing nor are their complaints and initial charges in question. Lawrence’s criticism and his title of the “Sound of Silence” detail the suppression African American citizens faced in America and their silent sufferings when fighting for social change. Another criticism that Lawrence details is the overlooking of past equality alterations that were highlighted in several amendments. He argues that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause grants equal citizenship and hate speech is therefore illicit due to repression of exercising rights and expression; however, Lawrence makes the distinction to the hypocrisy that when applied to the First 1 Charles R. Lawrence III, Crossburning and the Sound of Silence: Antisubordination Theory and the First Amendment, 37 VILL. L. REV. 788 (1992). 2 Charles R. Lawrence III, Crossburning and the Sound of Silence: Antisubordination Theory and the First Amendment, 37 VILL. L. REV. 790 (1992). Amendment “the act of cross-burning is an individual’s presentation of their beliefs.”3 He furthers this claim by including the Brown v. Board of Education court case when contending an antidiscrimination policy that protects citizens from racial segregation and the Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc when protecting sexism in workplaces. Lawrence underscores the contradiction between these amendments and their duty to protect the citizens from unlawful prejudice when expounding the theory of antisubordination. He declares that we “need to inform the First Amendment discourse with the insights of an antisubordination theory.”4 The antisubordination policy is addressing the law reform to maintain social equality for all citizens. Lawrence asserts in his title of the antisubordination theory and expresses that this has been the doctrine when deciding court cases for disadvantaged minority groups but is currently being objected to by the First Amendment. These previous criticisms all finalize the overall misinterpretation of the First Amendment. Lawrence affirms that the foremost implication of the First Amendment is the intrinsic value of self- expression and the incremental value of speech. He states that the First Amendment is utilized to achieve “debate and ideas that we need to make our democracy work” and the actions of non-expressive speech conveying threat, and intimidation towards a minority.5 Lawrence claims that the government establishes America’s ethics on speech. The intervention of the government only proves that our misinterpreted judgment of the First Amendment was not to allow all injustices to prevail but for the liberation of all citizens. The non-expressive speech about cross-burning does not convey the message the Founding Fathers primarily projected. Lawrence also concludes that it is contradictory that minority groups are silenced by our government when the First Amendment provides their right to their freedom. The First Amendment is therefore our own subjective viewpoints of whether or not our expression is imperative in a given situation and not the objective context of our rights. 3 Charles R. Lawrence III, Crossburning and the Sound of Silence: Antisubordination Theory and the First Amendment, 37 VILL. L. REV. 792 (1992). 4 Charles R. Lawrence III, Crossburning and the Sound of Silence: Antisubordination Theory and the First Amendment, 37 VILL. L. REV. 793 (1992). 5 Charles R. Lawrence III, Crossburning and the Sound of Silence: Antisubordination Theory and the First Amendment, 37 VILL. L. REV. 801 (1992).