What rationale led the Court to hold that the city of St. Paul in R.A.V. violated the First
Amendment while it held Mitchell’s First Amendment rights were not violated by a
Wisconsin law a year later in Wisconsin v. Mitchell?
Answer:
*A. Varies
In a public park in Sweet Home, Oregon, a group of college students staged a peaceful
demonstration against the Iraq War. The protest included the singing of peaceful songs,
the display of banners condemning the acts of the U.S. government, and finally the use
of several “barrels of oil” that were really large containers filled with colored water. A
city ordinance stated that large groups must have a permit to gather in the park in
question, and that all gatherings must cease by 11:30 p.m. The students chanted and
marched all day on January 20, 2004, and continued until 11:30 that night, when local
police told them they had to vacate the area. Then, around midnight, the leader of the
group, Lee Segal, stood on a podium and shouted “U.S., we condemn you for a war that
is only meant to save your precious oilwe spit on your efforts!” At that instant he
pushed over five “barrels of oil” and shouted, “we do not need oil if it is going to kill
our brothers and sisters!” The police arrested Segal and several others for their actions.
They were charged with violating the terms of their permit because they had remained
after 11:30, even though they were warned to leave. They were also charged with
destruction of public property because the dye used to color the water in the symbolic
barrels destroyed several trees, the grass, a park bench, and two picnic tables. Segal
claimed his First Amendment rights were violated, and the ACLU took his case all the
way to the Supreme Court.
If you were a justice on the Court, how would you rule in this case?
Answer:
*A. Varies
Contrast substantive due process and the rational basis approach.