R.A.V. (1992):   Groups interested in eliminating discrimination
against minorities have argued that an exception should be made for
“hate speech” directed against racial minorities, women, homosexuals,
etc., and this case deals with whether or not “hate speech” statutes
violate the First Am.  D and several other teenagers allegedly burned
a homemade cross inside the fenced yard of a black family that lived
across the street from D; the incident took place in the middle of
the night. D was prosecuted under the St. Paul “Bias-Motivated Crime
Ordinance,” which provided that “whoever places on public or private
property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti,
including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika,
which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger,
alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed,
religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor.” D contended  that the ordinance violated the First
Amendment in two respects: (1) it was substantially overbroad; and
(2) it was impermissibly content-based.  Was the “hate speech”
ordinance a violation of D’s First Am. rights?