Civil Liberties Test

In schools, freedoms and protections often collide because students are considered to be under the schools control while they are there. The way things are handled within a school is different from outside of a school because schools deal with minors who are under their protection. However in and out of school, people must sometimes give up their freedoms for the protection of others. Sometimes, the government must do things to protect the rights of the citizens, and sometimes citizens have to give up their rights in order to protect the rights of those around them.

There is a law called in loco parentis that states that the school can act as the students’ parents. In Hazelwood v. Kohlmeir, students argued that they had freedom of the press and could write about anything that they wanted. However, because the paper was being published in a school and the school needed to be able to protect the students, they won and the students were not able to publish the article about teen pregnancy and divorce. However the same rules do not apply to newspapers outside of a school. In the case Near v. Minnesota, the state shut down a newspaper that was about to publish an embarrassing story. The court ruled that the paper could not be shut down because of the first amendment and that the Minnesota law (that a paper could not publish malicious content) violated this amendment. The Government cannot stop you from publishing if what you are writing does not pose clear and present danger to the country or citizens. The case of Engel v. Vitale dealt with the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and also the establishment clause. The establishment clause said that the government cannot support or endorse a national religion. The free exercise clause also says that the government cannot stop you from practicing your religion. In this case, there was a mandated school prayer issued by New York. The Supreme Court agreed that because it was a public school in which students did not have a choice whether or not they went there, they could not force them to say a prayer because it was supporting a religion. In New Jersey v. TLO, a girl was accused of smoking in a school bathroom and her purse was searched. The issue was whether or not this violated the 4th amendment which discussed reasonable searches/ seizures. The court concluded that if there was probable cause, the school could search her purse. Furthermore, because she was in the school, all belongings were subject to search because the school was responsible for her. The case of Gideon v. Wainright, the suspects were charged with breaking and entering and were unable to afford a lawyer. Because the judge said that it was a minor offense, no lawyer was appointed and the suspect was found guilty. This violated the 6th amendment because it was not a fair trial. Also in Miranda v. Arizona suspects were questioned without warnings of their right to remain silent, exc. This violated the 5th amendment because you must give warning of rights so that the suspect is aware that anything they say will be used against them in the court of law.

There are many laws that limit what we can and cannot do or say. However, these laws are put into place in order to protect the freedoms of other people. If there were no laws restricting people's freedoms, we would live in a society where no one had any freedoms at all because there would be no rules as to what you can and cannot do. Because I do not want someone else to do something that would interefere with my freedoms, I am willing to give up some things in order to be protected by my government.

Test Post

This is my test post