Civil Liberties Test

The freedoms found within America are perhaps the defining qualities of this nation. When these freedoms collide with protecting America’s citizens a problem ensues. Once this occurs, freedoms will overthrow protection as long as physical harm is not brought upon others, but if the case occurs within a school protection always wins in the hope of defending the individual.
The First Amendment is one of the most important as it protects a citizen’s speech. In the case of Texas v. Johnson this freedom was jeopardized in the hopes of protecting the peace of surrounding citizens. Johnson burned a flag in protest of the Reagan Administration and was jailed for disrupting the peace and harming a symbol of unity. The police where trying to protect the peace and happiness of the community, but to do so they violated Johnson’s freedom. In court Johnson wins because physical expression was ruled as protected by the first amendment. Because Johnson did not physically harm someone, his freedom beat out “protection.”
Another freedom is given to citizens in the Sixth Amendment, or the right to a fair trial. In Gideon v. Wainright, this freedom was violated when the court refused to appoint an attorney to a convicted man. Although convicting the man physically protects other citizens, the court violated an important freedom. They did not need to further protect anyone else from physical harm and the man’s freedom won. Once he was in the court there was not a need to physically protect another citizen any longer. In the collision of freedom and protection, freedom won again.
Finally, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, a woman was convicted for possessing obscene materials found after an illegal police search of her home. The Fourth Amendment was violated because it protects a citizen from search without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It’s true that the possessing the material is illegal, but the violation of the Fourth Amendment and the freedom given to Mapp, allowed her to win her case. Even though the police were trying to protect surrounding citizens, the materials could not harm them as they were hidden within private property. Hence, Mapp’s freedom won, due to the exclusionary rule which states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used against you.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for situations within a school where student protection trounces any freedoms. In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. a student was caught smoking in a bathroom and was further searched for illegal substances. This search did not violate her rights because of the school setting. Although the drugs did not physically harm any other human being, the school feels a need to protect the individual. In Loco Parentis gives the school system the ability to take away freedoms in the hopes of protecting the students and peace in the school. Thus, anytime freedoms and protection collide within a school, protection will always win.
Although we are a nation with many freedoms, we are also a nation that hopes for security. When these two idealisms collide, a court battle usually ensues. As long as the freedom does not cause physical harm to anyone else, then freedoms will win every time.
-Lindsey May

Test Post

This is my test post