Civil Liberties Test

When freedoms and protections collide, peoples rights are questioned. Perfect examples of this come from cases having to do with the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. The First Amendment is Freedom of Religion, of Speech, and of the Press. In Near vs. Minnesota, a case concerning the freedom of press, Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials. charging that they were implicated with gangsters. The question was, did the Minnesota "gag law" violate the free press provision of the First Amendment? They found it unconstitutional and the Government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in advance. In Texas vs. Johnson, a case concerning the freedom of speech, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American Flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. The question was, is the desecration of an American Flag, by burning or otherwise, speech that is protected under the First Amendment? They found it protected expression and Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. In Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier, the Principal of Hazelwood East High, found two of the articles in the school newspaper issue to be inappropriate and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. The question was, did the Principal's deletion of the articles violate the students rights under the First Amendment? The answer was no and the Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. In Bethel vs. Fraser, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office, using graphic sexual metaphors in his speech. The question was, does the First Amendment prevent a school from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly? The answer was no, it is appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. The Fourth Amendment is Security from Unwarrantable Search and Seizure. In Mapp vs. Ohio, a case concerning Search and Seizure, Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after admittedly illegal search of her home for a fugitive. The question was, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? The answer was that the evidence was obtained illegal and therefore excluded from court at all levels of the Government. In Veronia School District vs. Acton, James Acton was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the drug testing. The question was, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? The answer was no, the Government concern over the safety of minors under their supervision overrides the minimal intrusion in student-athlete's privacy. In Goss vs. Lopez, the principals of students that were suspended, did not hold hearings for the affected students before ordering the suspensions. The Federal Court found that the student's rights had been violated. The question was, did the imposition of the suspensions without preliminary hearings violate the students' Due Process rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment? The answer was yes, students facing suspension should at a minimum be given notice and afforded some kind of hearing. In New Jersey vs. T.L.O., a case concerning reasonable suspicion exists in schools, a fourteen year old smoked in a girls bathroom and her principal searched through her purse and found marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The question was, did the search violate the Fourth Amendment? the answer was no, searched can be conducted only when a "probable causes" exists that an individual has violated the law. A few of those cases explained that students in school have the school teachers and principals take authority over them because of In Loco Parentis, which means that they take over the duties of the students' parents. The Fifth Amendment is Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings. In Miranda vs. Arizona, a case concerning Due Process, suspects were questioned by police officers, detectives, and prosecuting attorneys in rooms that cut them off from the outside world. In none of these cases were suspects given warnings of their rights at the outset of their interrogation. The question was did the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment? The answer was, prosecutors could not use illegal statements. Necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects including warnings of the to remain silent, the right to have a counsel present during interrogation. Going back to freedoms and protection in school vs. freedom and protection outside of school, Engle vs. Vitale proves to us that the school has power to limit anyones freedoms even to none and to protect as much as possible. This case had to do with school prayers. They found it unconstitutional because of the Establishment Clause, which is that Government shall not support or establish any religion. Santa Fe vs. Doe proves to us that after hours at school function, religion can be practiced. The students voted to have school prayer, the parents win, and taxpayer dollars are used to promote religion using the Free-Exercise Clause, stating that the Government cannot prevent you from exercising your religion.

Olivia Kenig

Test Post

This is my test post.