One of the most noticeable “freedoms” that our country has is also one of the things that can be most controversial. The first amendment gives us the freedom of speech and of the press, allowing Americans to speak what is on their mind as well as publish what they find newsworthy. However, this amendment also gets many citizens in trouble because they take their freedoms a little bit too far. In the Near v. Minnesota case a newspaper wanted to publish an embarrassing story about a politician, however the government stopped that story from printing because of its libelous material. The Supreme Court ended up ruling this unconstitutional due to prior restraint and the newspaper got their freedoms back and was able to publish whatever they wanted again. In this case the government tried protecting the politician while diminishing the freedoms of the newspaper.
Another similar instance of the freedom of speech and of the press being overshadowed was in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case in which a high school newspaper was going to publish a story about divorce and teen pregnancy, but the principal refused to let them to protect the students and families who appeared in the article. In this case, however, the principal won and the paper was not allowed to print the story due to in loco parentis where the school acts as the parents while the students are in school. Although the papers first amendment freedoms were overruled and priority was given to the protection of the students, the idea of censorship in all news agencies, whether it be in school or on a local or national level, is a tough subject. Schools are allowed to take away some of the freedoms of students in order to protect them since they are still minors.
The fifth amendment which deals with due process also has issues with freedom and protection. Before the Gideon v. Wainright and Miranda v. Arizona cases, among others, were brought to trial the government had very few rules about what criminals could do before going to court. However, after the Miranda v. Arizona case, the court process became smoother and more fair for those involved with it. Beforehand, when someone was arrested they were not given their rights and basically went to court blindly, however, after the Miranda case police are now inclined to read off the Miranda Rights so as to protect the freedoms of those being incriminated. Even though while going into courts many criminals are losing some of their freedoms, the governement and court systems are still trying to give them adequate protection so they do not disobey any laws and say something in the courts that could end up getting them in jail, even if they really were not guilty. By giving them these protections, the government is essentially giving criminals a higher chance of remaining free.
Another case which has shown the effects of protection and freedoms is Mapp v. Ohio, which deals with the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure to protect people from having the government come to their property and perform random searches without a warrant. In Mapp v. Ohio the police performed a search and gathered incriminating evidence, however, it was done without a warrant. Although this could be the police protecting the people around Mapp to try to find the bombing suspect, it infringed on Mapp’s freedoms by breaking into his house and actually finding evidence for a completely different and new crime by finding obscene literature. Since the police had no warrant and none of the evidence found was for the case they were working on, charges were dropped and the exclusionary rule was added in.
~Kym Baroni
No comments:
Post a Comment