mpelling interest in protecting the community against bias-motivated threats to public safety. Thus, in R.A.V., based on the precedent set in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the court decided that race-based fighting words could also be punished, but the Supreme Court reversed the conviction. Justice Scalia stated that “The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.” In 1989, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a group of young black men and boys, including Mitchell, beat a young white man, inspired by a scene from the movie “Mississippi Burning.” The boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days. Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery, which offense usually carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the jury found that Mitchell had intentionally selected his victim because of his race, and the sentence for his offense was increased to seven years. The Court rejected Mitchell’s claim that it was unconstitutional to punish his ideas. Relying on R. A. V. v. St. Paul, the Court held that the statute was directed at the defendant’s conduct that is committing a crime. Hence, the statute did not focus on Mitchell’s bigoted ideas, but rather on the actions resulting from these thoughts.V.Hate Speech on the Internet and Court DecisionsThe precedents set by the above cases have also applied to the Internet in Court’s ruling. There are relatively few cases involving hate speech on the Internet but the following show the limits of free speech in regard to this new medium. In United States v. Machado the Court held that transmitting racially motivated harassing speech over the Internet was a violation of the law. In 1996, a student at the University of California, Richard Machado, 21, sent a threatening e-mail signed “Asian Hater” to 60 Asian stud...
