v. City of St. Paul (1992), a group of white teenagers burned a cross made from chair legs in the backyard of a black family. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the teens despite their abhorrent act because they were charged under the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance, which is itself discriminatory and violates the First Amendment. It is patently unconstitutional because it prohibits speech based solely on the subject matter against which the speech is opposed. The court, however, did not rule on the teenagers' act itself. There is no doubt that the act is reprehensible and that the teenagers are responsible for property damage and intimidation of a family, but the charge brought against them focused on their motivation rather than their criminal acts . The optimal way to deal with hate speech is not to restrict or prohibit it in any way, as this will only further enrage people as they feel deprived of their constitutional rights, which indeed they are. Controlling hate speech will not be an effective deterrent, but imposing stricter laws and regulations will. They discourage volatile acts without punishing an individual for his or her beliefs, even if they are contrary to those of the majority. Arguing against limiting hate speech does not automatically equate to being racist or not caring about the well-being of others, especially the goals of minorities, but understanding the way our Constitution operates. Our founding fathers