case brought a challenge to free speech and expressive conduct. Allegedly seen, several teenagers burned a disturbing looking cross on a black family's lawn. Furthermore, the police charged one of the teens under a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance this prohibits the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” In a 9-to-0 vote, the justices decision held the ordinance invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." In addition, the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas
case brought a challenge to free speech and expressive conduct. Allegedly seen, several teenagers burned a disturbing looking cross on a black family's lawn. Furthermore, the police charged one of the teens under a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance this prohibits the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” In a 9-to-0 vote, the justices decision held the ordinance invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." In addition, the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas