Freedoms and protections butt heads everyday, and have been doing so since this country was founded. My first case has to due with the very first Amendment; freedome of speech. A man named Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag in protest to Reagan. The case, Texas v. Johnson, argued that it was protected freedom of speech to burn a flag. The idea is that since he isn’t harming anyone, or directly attacking America then it is simply a protest, which is protected under freedom of speech. A since he wasn’t interfering with anyone else’s right to be safe, he was protected by the government. In Mapp v. Ohio an illegal search of a home resulted in the discovery of “pornographic material”, which was illegal in Ohio. The search itself infringed upon the 4th amendment, which protects us from unwaeeantable search and seizure. As a result of the evidence discovered, the owner was convicted of a crime, but the evidence itself was part of another crime. In this case, the (protected)freedoms win, because despite the illegality of the items, they were taken in an illegal search. The owner was free to go, because the evidence was not taken via a warrant. So, the freedom is that a person can’t be tried with illegal evidence, despite the fact that the crime (in this case not as much) could be bad enough to warrant protection. Sometimes protection do beat freedoms, especially in a school setting. In Veronia v. Acton student athletes were found to have drug habbits via random drug testing. The students argued that this violated unwarrented search (4th), and as a result could not be used against them. The protections won, however, because the students are under the protection of the state in school, and school-related activities. Under this idea, the school acts as guadian in the stead of the parents, making the drug tests protected in the students intrest. The students freedoms lost out to their own protections, because in school rights may be infringed due to the “in loco paretis” policy. This is not always the case, however. In Goss v. lopez, stusents were given a 10-day suspension wihtout any form of trial. The school argued that this was in the students best intrest, and covered by protection of them. The students didn’t agree, and claimed it violated the 5th amendment (the right to due process). Now normally the school wins in related cases, but in this particular case the students win. The verdict was that the 5th amendment applies to students as well, so as a result their freedoms were infringed upon. While students lose a lot of right while in school, they still retain some of their base freedoms. Freedoms and protections collide in alsmost every court case that doesn’t plead “guilty” (and even some of those!). The ballance is hard to keep, when a judge has to decide between keeping the peace, and securing the freedoms given to us. Overall if something infringes on someone’s safety, then it is considered worthy of protectiion, which may go against constitutional freedoms. Which makes sense in the end, because if you are making someone else unsafe, then THEY aren’t free.
Freedoms and protections butt heads everyday, and have been doing so since this country was founded. My first case has to due with the very first Amendment; freedome of speech. A man named Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag in protest to Reagan. The case, Texas v. Johnson, argued that it was protected freedom of speech to burn a flag. The idea is that since he isn’t harming anyone, or directly attacking America then it is simply a protest, which is protected under freedom of speech. A since he wasn’t interfering with anyone else’s right to be safe, he was protected by the government.
ReplyDeleteIn Mapp v. Ohio an illegal search of a home resulted in the discovery of “pornographic material”, which was illegal in Ohio. The search itself infringed upon the 4th amendment, which protects us from unwaeeantable search and seizure. As a result of the evidence discovered, the owner was convicted of a crime, but the evidence itself was part of another crime. In this case, the (protected)freedoms win, because despite the illegality of the items, they were taken in an illegal search. The owner was free to go, because the evidence was not taken via a warrant. So, the freedom is that a person can’t be tried with illegal evidence, despite the fact that the crime (in this case not as much) could be bad enough to warrant protection.
Sometimes protection do beat freedoms, especially in a school setting. In Veronia v. Acton student athletes were found to have drug habbits via random drug testing. The students argued that this violated unwarrented search (4th), and as a result could not be used against them. The protections won, however, because the students are under the protection of the state in school, and school-related activities. Under this idea, the school acts as guadian in the stead of the parents, making the drug tests protected in the students intrest. The students freedoms lost out to their own protections, because in school rights may be infringed due to the “in loco paretis” policy.
This is not always the case, however. In Goss v. lopez, stusents were given a 10-day suspension wihtout any form of trial. The school argued that this was in the students best intrest, and covered by protection of them. The students didn’t agree, and claimed it violated the 5th amendment (the right to due process). Now normally the school wins in related cases, but in this particular case the students win. The verdict was that the 5th amendment applies to students as well, so as a result their freedoms were infringed upon. While students lose a lot of right while in school, they still retain some of their base freedoms.
Freedoms and protections collide in alsmost every court case that doesn’t plead “guilty” (and even some of those!). The ballance is hard to keep, when a judge has to decide between keeping the peace, and securing the freedoms given to us. Overall if something infringes on someone’s safety, then it is considered worthy of protectiion, which may go against constitutional freedoms. Which makes sense in the end, because if you are making someone else unsafe, then THEY aren’t free.
BY: AUSTIN LITTLE
PERIOD-1