Civil Liberties Test

It’s often a difficult decision between civil liberties and protection in which we need a Supreme Court ruling on the matter. One of the more significant cases on this matter would be Near v. Minnesota in which the right to write stories, even if incriminating, was protected. This case supported the right to expose truth in a manner which does not harm the security of the nation, protecting the 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech. The liberty was deemed more valuable than the protection. In another, more controversial case (Texas v. Johnson,) a man burned an American flag in political protest, and was arrested. Again, the 1st amendment rights of speech were protected. The danger to the public was deemed negligible, as no violence was being condoned, and only political expressed speech was given. Yet again, the civil liberties of Americans won. In regards to protecting us from oppressive government and police, the Mapp v. Ohio case intended on protecting the 4th amendment rights of no search and seizure without a warrant, and thanks to the exclusionary rule, it did. These rights do not, however, tend to extend to students in education. In New Jersey v T.L.O., a young girl was found smoking, and her bag was searched, and drug paraphernalia was found. This was ruled to not be in violation of her 4th amendment rights which hold students to a higher standard and needing only reasonable suspicion over probable cause for a search. For the students, at least, protection finally wins. There is a scenario in which both sides win. In Miranda v. Arizona, the 5th amendment is questioned as to whether it should include the right to know one’s rights as an accused criminal. As Miranda was the winning side, we are now forced to be read the Miranda Rights during an arrest. This ensures both our 5th amendment rights as well as protects us from abuse by the law and authority. Overall, when protections and freedoms collide, the winner tends to be freedoms, except in the case of students. We tend to wish to protect the youth more than the general public, which often comes across misconstrued as the desire to squash the rights of a usually rebellious natured age-group.

- Michael "Kash Moneys" Lindh