The KKK used the cross burning as a direct threat to scare families, and R.A.V. actions have the same effect. Their actions are no different from the KKK's. The only defense R.A.V. has is that they have no direct affiliation with the KKK. .
However, one could argue R.A.V. should not be convicted for a few reasons. One reason is the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance has no clear definition of a hate crime. The law only prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" and what R.A.V. did not fall under those restrictions. Also it could be argued R.A.V. is being prosecuted by coincidence of a hate crime. The teenagers could have just been bored, and they could have just decided to build a cross for the heck of it. They could have decided that they wanted to set it on fire next, and after that they decided they would rather watch it burn in some one else's yard instead of in remote area. To top that off, the owners of the yard were African American. Maybe the teenagers just have bad luck, but it seems that too much happened for it to be a coincidence or an accident. .
This case would be very different if the people who owned the yard were not black. If the family had been a white family, R.A.V. would have most likely been charged with arson, trespassing, and/or destruction of property. If R.A.V. had not chosen a cross to burn either, this case would be completely different, and there would be no racism problem involved. Since the family was black and they chose a cross to burn, all of theses elements become relevant and related to the KKK. .
The Supreme Court of the United States decided the ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment. The ordinance may have been a little broad and was in need of some tweaking, but it does not seem to violate the rights granted by the First Amendment.
