Civil Liberties Test

What happens when freedoms and protections collide? For many cases there have been questionable actions on both the individual and the government. One of these cases is Near V Minnesota which involves the first amendment. In this case Jay Near published an article attacking a local official saying they were involved with gangsters. Near then was not allowed to publish the paper using an injunction. The freedom of press and the protection of the local official were the things at stake in this case. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Near because he has the right to publish an article even if it could ruin the reputation of the local official. The fact that the government had the ability to stop a newspaper so that they could protect their reputations is an abuse of power and they should not have done something to ruin them if they did not want people to slander them. Though we have this freedom when it comes to newspapers in towns of cities many students do not have this ability because of a law of in loco parentis which is the administration acts as a “parental figure” when deciding what is appropriate for the students to see watch and reed. A case showing this was Bethel V Fraser. In this case Fraser made a speech for a friend running for a school elected office. At the assembly his speech was taken as a graphic sexual metaphor and was suspended from school for two days. This case was about the first amendment and his freedom of speech. Fraser lost the case because of in loco parentis and the idea that in school you have less freedoms the second you walk in because they have to protect you even more than when you are just in town. Though the speech said nothing actually vulgar it was taken in the wrong way and Fraser was suspended, I feel this is not something that should be done because if there was no actual evidence of any sexual acts then it should be allowed to be seen because in high school many of the students watch and hear even more vulgar things on TV, movies, or any were they go. Another case that is important is Mapp V Ohio which involves the fourth amendment. In this case Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene material after an illegal search of her house for a fugitive. The fact that it was an illegal search and that the warrant they were using was a fact brought this to the Supreme Court. The evidence they found at her house was not allowed to be acted upon one because of the fact that it was an illegal search of the house and two that what they were looking for was a fugitive not the obscene material. The Supreme Court ruled that the information or the evidence was not allowed to be used in court. This I believe to be true because the only way you can go in without a warrant is plain view so if they see drugs or obscene material they can go in and confiscate it, reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The last case that deals with the fourteenth amendment is Goss V Lopez. In this case nine students were given ten day suspensions from school without a hearing. This was considered to be violating the student’s rights under the fourteenth amendment of due process. Once taken to the Supreme Court and that even the students have the right to a trail just like everyone else does. In this case the students have the same freedoms as any citizen and are not allowed to be suspended or expelled without a proper trail. I feel this to be one of the rights that are good to be enforced because it allows someone who should not be suspended to have a chance to prove it.

Test Post

this is my test post