In the case of RAV v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, a juvenile was charged under a local ordinance for burning a cross on an African American family's lawn. The ordinance prohibited symbols known to arouse anger or resentment on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender. However, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that this law was unconstitutional as it violated First Amendment rights by being overly broad and content-based in its restriction on free speech; it selectively banned certain types of speech based upon their subject matter (hate speech). While acknowledging that hate crimes can cause serious harm and are reprehensible acts deserving punishment under criminal law statutes specifically addressing such conduct with neutral terms without reference to message content or viewpoint expressed therein - like assault laws - they held that government cannot regulate expression merely because public officials disapprove its contents.

In the dissenting opinion for RAV v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, Justice White argued that the majority's decision to strike down a local ordinance as unconstitutional was incorrect because it misinterpreted both precedent and First Amendment principles. He contended that while the ordinance may have been imperfectly drafted, its aim was not to suppress certain viewpoints but rather to protect individuals from harmful conduct based on race, color, creed or religion - a legitimate government interest. The law did not prohibit all expressions of racial hatred but only those likely to incite violence or cause emotional distress in targeted individuals; therefore it should be considered content-neutral and permissible under previous Supreme Court rulings like Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942). Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that hate speech is entitled to special protection because it expresses ideas; instead he believed such speech can inflict injury by itself without necessarily leading to action.