Interesting post-R.A.V. case

[Volokh, Eugene]

        I just saw an interesting district court case that I think provides
a great insight on the whole R.A.V. discrimination-within-unprotected-speech
question.  The ACLU sued and won on behalf of a plaintiff who was
challenging a state law that imposed special penalties for knowingly false
complaints against police officers (Cal Penal Code 148.6).  The court held,
following R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, that the law was unconstitutional.
Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino, 2000 WL 1140337 (C.D. Cal.).

        Any thoughts?  The "test" articulated by R.A.V. has come in for a
good deal of in my view justified criticism, but it seems to me to rest on a
forceful insight, one that seems particularly apt here.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20000828/3ada6e1b/attachment.htm