of the distress caused, the balance between speaker and listener might swing to the listener. Press spends much of the remainder of the article establishing dormitories as nonpublic forums, thus not being granted the same level of protection as public forums and making them more open for regulation. He cites as demonstrating a legitimate state interest in protecting Frisby v. Schultz unwilling listeners in their homes, and that speech can be prohibited when the captive audience cannot avoid speech. His claims are further backed by a 4th circuit case Chapman v. Thomas, which classified dormitories as nonpublic forums. Using the public forum doctrine, speech can be restricted in nonpublic forums, provided that the restrictions are not suppressing expression because of opposition from school officials. This also fits into the framework, and is a R.A.V. useful alternative to the fighting words doctrine. Hate Crime Legislation Hans C. Wahl, Right to be Offended: The Greatest of All Unenumerated Rights,” “The 13 (Spring 2012). Florida Coastal Law Review Wahl begins his article by looking at the implications of the decision in R.A.V. vs. The City of He states that there were some in the field of constitutional law who St. Paul, Minnesota. interpreted this decision as saying that it is particularly unacceptable to evaluate and attack one’s speech or motivation while also evaluating any criminal conduct which may have occurred. This loophole, some reasoned, meant that it was acceptable to evaluate one’s speech and motivations criminal conduct has been determined to be legitimate. This leads Press to the case of after which determined whether or not enhancing existing criminal penalties Wisconsin v. Mitchell, was constitutional because the perpetrator’s motivation came from discriminatory hate. The court unanimously upheld the provision, contending that the First Amendment does not prohibit the use of speech as evidence to determine motive or intent for a crime, and that there is no
of the distress caused, the balance between speaker and listener might swing to the listener. Press spends much of the remainder of the article establishing dormitories as nonpublic forums, thus not being granted the same level of protection as public forums and making them more open for regulation. He cites Frisby v. Schultz as demonstrating a legitimate state interest in protecting unwilling listeners in their homes, and that speech can be prohibited when the captive audience cannot avoid speech. His claims are further backed by Chapman v. Thomas, a 4th circuit case which classified dormitories as nonpublic forums. Using the public forum doctrine, speech can be restricted in nonpublic forums, provided that the restrictions are not suppressing expression because of opposition from school officials. This also fits into the R.A.V. framework, and is a useful alternative to the fighting words doctrine. Hate Crime Legislation Hans C. Wahl, “The Right to be Offended: The Greatest of All Unenumerated Rights,” Florida Coastal Law Review 13 (Spring 2012). Wahl begins his article by looking at the implications of the decision in R.A.V. vs. The City of St. Paul, Minnesota. He states that there were some in the field of constitutional law who interpreted this decision as saying that it is particularly unacceptable to evaluate and attack one’s speech or motivation while also evaluating any criminal conduct which may have occurred. This loophole, some reasoned, meant that it was acceptable to evaluate one’s speech and motivations after criminal conduct has been determined to be legitimate. This leads Press to the case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, which determined whether or not enhancing existing criminal penalties was constitutional because the perpetrator’s motivation came from discriminatory hate. The court unanimously upheld the provision, contending that the First Amendment does not prohibit the use of speech as evidence to determine motive or intent for a crime, and that there is no
Dragonetti_Protection_Speech.docx