Spinaroonie
LOOK WHAT I FOUND!
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 17,721
I'll start. R.A.V. v St. Paul, Minnesota. This one basically says that laws dealing with conent-based restriction of speech get to have the strict scrutiny hammer whacked down on them, unless the gov't has a compelling state interest to restrict the speech - which is incredibly difficult to prove.