Which of the following best describes the result of r. a.v v. city of st. paul?

Arguments and rulings in RAV v st paul

in trial court, RAV said ordinance was too overbroad and IMPERMISSIBLY CONTENT BASED. trial court agrees and grants in favor of RAV. then minnesota supreme court reversed decision in favor of st. paul because they thought the ordinance was specific enough. so it finally goes to SCOTUS

final verdict: content based restrictions are invalid because they limit free speech. you can't punish or prosecute because you don't like content. could get them on arson but not on the message. 9-0 in favor of RAV. the ordinance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was struck down both because it was overbroad, proscribing both "fighting words" and protected speech, and because the regulation was "content-based," proscribing only activities which conveyed messages concerning particular topics. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed.

hope this helps.