Civil Liberties Test

When freedoms and protections collide, the government allows as much freedom allowed for it citizens to still be safe without breaking their civil liberties. Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that protect an individual from the state. Civil liberties set limits on government so that its members cannot abuse their power and interfere unduly with the lives of private citizens. First I would like to talk about the first amendment; the first amendment states that the government can not impede the free exercise of religion, infringe on the freedom of speech and infringe on the freedom of the press. I am going to focus on the freedom of speech aspect of this amendment. The court case of Texas vs. Johnson shows what happens when freedoms and protections collide. At a protest that Johnson organized to protest Reagan’s policies, a United States flag was burned. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled in favor of Johnson’s freedom; they believed that this mode of self-expression was protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, stating the flag burning was "expressive conduct" because it was an attempt to "convey a particularized message." When freedoms collide with protection, freedom wins as long as there is no direct damage to any US citizens. Freedom of speech in schools is different, and students have fewer freedoms. This is seen through the court case of Bethel vs. Fraser. Fraser gave a speech at a school assembly with sexual metaphors and gestures. He was found guilty for using vulgar and offensive language, which is inconsistent with the fundamental values of public school education, this is because of In loco parentis, which allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties. In this case protection of the other students overrides the freedom of Fraser, because it could offend or mentally hurt them. So if anyone can get mentally or physically hurt, protection overrides the freedom of such people saying them.

Second I would like to talk about the Fourth amendment; which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court case of Mapp vs. Ohio shows what happens when protection and freedom collides over the Fourth Amendment. Police entered Mapp’s house because they believed a suspect in a recent bombing to be there, although they didn’t find the suspect they found some obscene literature that was illegal to have in possession. The police only had a warrant for the suspect and not for the obscene material, so the Supreme Court overturned this conviction on the grounds that the search was illegal. The Mapp case incorporated the 4th amendment into the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment and created the "exclusionary rule," which prevents the use of evidence gained by these so-called illegal searches. Opponents of the exclusionary rule argue "the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered," to which Justice Clark answered "The criminal goes free if he must, but it is the law that sets him free." When protection of the citizens against obscene material collides with a person’s freedom against unreasonable search and seizures, the freedom of that person wins if the search was unlawful as in this case. The police entering the house was allowed because they were looking for a suspect, but they needed a new warrant to seize the obscene material. In schooling systems this is very different, because students have less freedom in school. This is seen in the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O., were T.L.O. was accused of smoking in the bathroom of her high school. A principle searched her and found marijuana and other drug paraphernalia, the Supreme Court ruled that the search and seizure of this student was constitutional because school officials do not need probable cause to search a student on school grounds because of in loco parentis. When protection of other students collide with the freedom from a unreasonable search and seizure, the protection of students wins because institutions such as colleges and schools are allowed to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit. In this case they had the right to search this student, because they needed to act in the best interest of the other students to protect them.

Lastly, I would like to talk about the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains the Due Process Clause. This clause has also been used to recognize: (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights; and (2) procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing, be followed before a person's "life, liberty, or property" can be taken away. The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. The court case of Miranda vs. Arizona shows what happens when protection and freedom collides over the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case Miranda was questioned and forced to make a confession without knowing his rights to council and to keep silent. The Supreme Court decided in the favor Miranda’s freedom and said that the confession was inadmissible because the police should have stated his rights; to remain silent and to have a lawyer. When the freedom and protection collide under the Fourteenth Amendment freedom of having the right to council and to keep silent always wins, the trial then decides whether the person is guilty or not which is the thing protecting other citizens from criminals. Schooling systems have the same freedoms in the Fourteenth Amendment; this is seen through the court case of Goss vs. Lopez. Nine students were given ten day suspensions from school without hearings; the federal court found the students rights to have been violated. The Supreme Court favored the student’s rights to trial by jury, they should have been allowed preliminary hearings before the imposition of suspensions, because of due process stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. If the state of Ohio, where the school was, gave its citizens rights to education, it can not withdraw the right to a trial over matters of the school. In this case in loco parentis is used to protect the accused students, because it is in the best interest of the students to receive a trial in which the Fourteenth Amendment calls for. When protections and freedoms collide over the Fourteenth Amendment on school matter, the freedom of students win because everyone has the right to a trial no matter what they do. In this case there are no protection issues because there is still a trial for these individuals which if they are found guilty will protect citizens from criminals.