Civil Liberties Test

My first example of when protection and freedoms collide is in the case of Near vs. Minnesota. In this case Jay Near was set to publish many “unproven” scandals that may have been occurring with Minnesota officials, but Minnesota had a law that prevented any defamatory publications. However, this law that Minnesota had in place violated the 1st Amendment that government cannot prevent or censor a publication in advance, and only if it is proven defamatory or untrue after, they can get in trouble.
Another instance of freedoms and protection in collision comes in the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier. In this case high school students were unable to publish two of their articles because the principal found them inappropriate. The students argued that this violated the 1st amendment like in the Near vs. Minnesota case, but because it happened on school grounds it feel under in loco parentis and it was up to the principal’s reasonable discretion. Since the kids were protected by the school very similarly to that of our parents, it does not violate the 1st amendment.
The next example of freedom in collision with protection is the case of Mapp vs. Ohio. In this case Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing pornographic material after an unlawful search was conducted in her home. In this ruling, because the search violated the 4th amendment, she was not convicted. The 4th amendment prevents unlawful search and it is known as the search and seizure policy.
A similar case occurred in New Jersey vs. T.L.O. In this case T.L.O was accused of smoking in the bathroom at her school, and when she was called down and questioned, the principal searched her purse and found marijuana along with rolling papers and a list of people that owed her money. She argued that by not having probable cause, the search violated the 4th and 14th amendments, which is the search and seizure policy, and the right to equal protection of the law respectively. However, because she was in school and was under the rule of in loco parentis, these were exceptions, and reasonable suspicion was enough for a search warrant.