Civil Liberties Test

When freedoms and protections collide it tests our government and makes them decide what is more important for the people. From the Supreme Court cases that we looked at in class it seemed pretty easy to tell which one would win, however that can differ in schools. In the case of Near v. Minnesota a man named Jay Near wanted to publish something that said local officials were involved with gangsters. At first he was not allowed to publish it, but he appealed and fought for his right to publish it under freedom of speech and freedom of press under the first amendment. Near won this and had the right to publish his document, in this case freedoms won. Another case we looked at was Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. In this case, a student wanted to publish the school newspaper but the principal withheld certain pages. This particular student got angry about this and wanted to fight what the principal had done. The question then became did withholding the pages violate the students rights under the first amendment? The answer to this was no because it was in school and editorial control is completely reasonable because while in school the administrators are to act in place of the parents. In this case, protections won. The difference between something happening in a school or not pretty much makes the decision of a case. Outside of a school people can publish almost whatever they want and are protected to do so, while inside a school the students must follow what the administrators say and cannot publish anything they want. Another case we looked at was Mapp v. Ohio. Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after her house was originally being searched for a fugitive. Mapp appealed this under the fourth amendment. The question was may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the fourth amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? The answer to this was no because Mapp had been convicted on illegally obtained materials. Due to the fact that the evidence against her was illegally obtained, freedoms won. Another case similar to Mapp v. Ohio is New Jersey v. T.L.O. However, the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. was in a school. This case was when a 14 year old girl was accused of smoking in a school bathroom and she was questioned, searched, and found with marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. This case was fought and the question was did the search violate the fourth amendment and the fourteenth amendment? The answer was no because she was in a school and the school had reasonable suspicion to search her. This is a case where protections win because it was in a school. Once again, the difference between a case in and outside of school is huge. Outside of a school, officials cannot just search a person or their belongings, but in a school the administrators have the right if they have reasonable suspicion. The final case I looked at was Miranda v. Arizona. In this case Miranda confessed to his crime, but then recanted because he was not informed of his right to remain silent. He fought this because he thought it violated the fifth amendment. When it went to the Supreme Court, Miranda won under the fifth amendment because it protects people from self-incrimination. This case is also where the name of the Miranda Rights came from and once again, freedoms win outside of a school. After examining these cases it is pretty easy to tell what happens when freedoms and protections collide. Freedoms usually win in cases outside of schools, while protections seem to win inside of schools.

Test Post

This is my test post