Had the court applied consistency in their different rulings to local hate crimes, this case would have been settled in the lower court. As the previous decisions that Mitchell was using to justify his words; were clearly in appropriate decisions made by the court that did not protect free speech. Instead, it enabled someone to be a racist, because they could hide behind the First Amendment. It is through examining the Supreme Court case Wisconsin vs. Mitchell; in this light that highlights the overall complexity faced by various municipalities in regards to hate crimes ordinances.
Bibliography
Barclay vs.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Center. 2010. 28 Feb. 2010
Dawson vs. Delaware. Cornell Law. 2010. 28 Feb. 2010
Haupt vs. United States. Find Law. 2020. 28 Feb. 2010
New York vs. Ferber. BC. 2009. 28 Feb. 2010
R.A.V. Vs. St. Paul. Cornell Law. 2010. 28 Feb. 2010
Wisconsin vs. Mitchell. Cornell Law. 2010. 28 Feb. 2010
Wisconsin vs. Mitchell. Cornell Law. 2010. 28 Feb. 2010
R.A.V. Vs. St. Paul. Cornell Law. 2010. 28 Feb. 2010
Barclay vs. Florida. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Center. 2010. 28 Feb. 2010
Dawson vs. Delaware. Cornell Law. 2010. 28 Feb. 2010
Haupt vs. United States. Find Law. 2020. 28 Feb. 2010
New York vs. Ferber. BC. 2009. 28 Feb. 2010
Wisconsin vs. Mitchell. Cornell Law. 2010. 28 Feb. 2010
