Civil Liberties Test

The United States government has the body of a 35 year old California gold digger: it has faced multiple adjustments and alterations in order to achieve its fine state. Since there is a large gray area concerning the battle between freedoms and protections, it is only right that the government try to define this area through its own form of plastic surgery, the guess and check method. Yet when these freedoms and protections collide, the government comes closer to a guideline of higher moral behavior in the United States, ultimately favoring protections.

A major issue concerning protection by the first amendment is freedom of speech. In Morse v. Frederick, a student was suspended from school after he refused the principal's direction to take down a banner that appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. The Ninth Circuit found a First Amendment violation because the school officials punished the student without demonstrating that his speech gave rise to a risk of substantial disruption. However, the Supreme Court decided that the "substantial disruption" rule of Tinker was not the only basis for restricting student speech. Since there are special characteristics in the school environment, they decided that schools were entitled to take steps to safeguard those characteristics. This decision proved to enforce further rulings that certain rights such as freedom of speech are cannot be withheld in schools if such actions prohibit the learning process or promote non-legal activities such as drug or alcohol abuse.

Another issue within the first amendment is freedom of religion. In Epperson Et Al. v. Arkansas, a teacher challenged the constitutionality of the Arkansas law that made it a misdemeanor to teach the evolution theory, which she was fired for. Clearly the law was not religiously neutral, since it attempted to blot out a particular theory due to its supposed conflict with the Biblical account. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the state supreme court and decided that the Arkansas law violated the first amendment. Though the government believed it was protecting student’s by hiding the information concerning evolution, it is in violation of the first amendment, for there is no danger or ignorance in the teaching of such beliefs. After this case, the government can no longer prohibit teaching information with non-religious affiliation that also does not harm the well being of the academic youth of the nation. This is the government's form of protecting the youth from the dangers of concealing information, affecting the advancement in the future of our nation.

Along with the first amendment comes another which is has caused countless debates, the fourth amendment. In Board of Education vs. Earls, students contended that the board's drug testing policy was unconstitutional since the board failed to identify a special need for testing students who participate in extracurricular activities. The United States Supreme Court held, however, that the policy did not constitute an unreasonable search because the board has a right to detect and prevent drug use by its students. Since the student’s signed a waiver which eliminates the expectation of privacy, the school has a right to take urine samples for testing. This sets a guideline which states that the government has the right to protect the youth, basically, from their own destructiveness through drug testing.

In addition, argument over the fifth amendment has proven to increase the freedom of the general public. In Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda confessed to his crime, yet was set free due to a technicality; since he was unaware of his rights while being arrested, his self incrimination could not be used against him in the court of law. After this ruling, self incrimination cannot be used as evidence of any case. Though there are more rights, such as the right to remain silent, the truth is, the government is protecting citizens from themselves by not allowing them to “shoot themselves in the foot.” The ruling is a truly solid step forward in creating the American guideline for a more moral government and general public.

As seen in the decisions of such court cases, when freedoms and protections collide, the government tends to favor protections. Whether it be offensive speech or concerns with drugs, the government will do whatever it takes to ensure a safer, healthier future. Though the gray area is still quite large, these steps will soon add up to a distinct, sensible set of laws which will hopefully prevent the need for any further use of the “guess and check method” which we, as a nation, currently know and love.