Civil Liberties Test

A freedom is the human value, or situation, to act according to one's will without being held up by the power of others. While protection is defined as the act of protecting or the state of being protected; preservation from injury or harm. Ultimately, the protection of all citizens is the main goal and purpose of our government. But they must make sure that none of these acts of protection interfere with those freedoms that everybody must have. What happens when these two conflict with each other? There are four Supreme Court cases that I believe give a definitive answer to the question, what happens when freedoms and protections collide.
One case that really exemplifies our fourth amendment, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure, is the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. This was a case where a teacher walked by a bathroom and smelled smoke. Since T.L.O. was in that bathroom while the accusations of someone smoking were made, the school believed they had the right to search her, and ended up finding some illegal material on her. T.L.O. was trying to argue that this search violated the rights granted to her in the fourth amendment. When it made it to the Supreme Court, they ruled that since it was on school grounds, the school had probable cause and they can commence a search if it is done reasonably. So when the school was just trying to protect its students, they did the right thing by searching that girl and did not violate any of her freedoms.
When it comes to the 6th amendment, the case of Gideon v. Wainright really shows how our freedoms overcome our government’s protections. Gideon was arrested for breaking and entering and could not afford a lawyer and was told by the court that he did not need one. Ultimately, he was convicted of the crime and decided to take it further because he felt like the court was in violation of his rights granted to him under the 6th amendment and the court agreed with him. They felt that it was unconstitutional to not grant the accused with their own lawyer. His freedoms were cut short by not receiving his lawyer and did not receive a fair trial. Even though the court was trying to protect its citizens by taking a criminal off of the streets, that criminal is a citizen and must be granted the same exact rights as everybody else.
Looking at our freedoms and protections, there is a fine line between what happens to adults, and what happens to kids while in the classroom. The case of Bethel v. Fraser displays that fine line between what is and is not allowed in schools when it comes to expression and our first amendment. When Fraser got up in front of the whole school and delivered a speech that was vividly vulgar and inappropriate for a school setting, he probably was thinking that he was going to be protected by the first amendment, which grants the people with freedom of speech and expression. But the school felt otherwise and handed Fraser a two day suspension. Upon receiving this news, Fraser felt as though this punishment was completely unfair and wanted to challenge this ruling. In the end, it was determined that the school was right in imposing that suspension because of the fact that he crossed a certain threshold for some students by delivering that speech to the whole school. There is also this concept of in loco parentis that basically gives the school the same rights your parents have, while you are under their watch during the school day. So if the school felt that the speech deserved a two-day suspension the court could not help but agree.
Now to examine the other end of the spectrum, we must look at the freedoms and protections outside of school. With the case of Texas v. Johnson, where Johnson was a man in protest of the Reagan administration outside of the Dallas city hall, and he decided that he was going to set an American flag ablaze. The question that came up with this case is whether the desecration of an American flag a form of speech that is protected under the first amendment or not. In the end, it was decided that his actions fell into a category of expressive conduct and had a distinctive political nature. That is where the line is crossed between what is allowed in and outside of school. In the end, everybody is going to get their freedoms, but when the laws that protect us and solely aim at keeping our people save conflict with one of those freedoms, the protections are forced to come out on top, and over rule those much loved freedoms.