Civil Liberties: Should We Be As Proud Citizens Of America?

The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 12th, 1968 to a packed court house. The main constitutional question at hand was if a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and expression. Attorney Dan L. Johnson argued on the Tinker’s behalf, proclaiming that the students had the constitutional right, as per the 1st amendment freedom of speech and expression, to wear the black armbands as a form of symbolic speech. On the other hand, attorney Allan A. Herrick defended the school board’s actions, inciting that the prohibition of armbands was necessary to prevent and stifle any violence or disorder. The topic of discussion during the oral arguments centered largely upon whether Tinker’s protest was disruptive to the class environment. Johnson argued that the anti-Vietnam protest, although sparking some talk, was undisruptive to school, citing that there was no evidence of disruption in any of the classes. Herrick, conversely, argued that the Vietnam War was an inflammatory issue, and that armbands invoked violence, especially since a

Freedom of Expression is a right that all Americans can joy on a daily basis, now imagine if it were a controlled right? That doesn’t make it a right, more so something that we can use when the government says so. In November of 1968, 4 students organized a silent protest against the US policies in Vietnam, which ended with suspension from their local schools. The issue was brought up in court, which led to split consensus. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court was that the expression of speech couldn’t be prohibited unless it was a disruption and harmed the rights of others. The dissent opinion stated that if freedom of speech was without a limit to an extent, who says it could lead to school being a platform for the exercise of free speech instead of education. The argument came to the conclusion of defining the rights and freedom of speech for children in school. I agree with the majority opinion, seeing the freedom of expression shouldn’t be controlled and such.

One might ask the importance of civil liberties after so many years. The answer is that we are all touched by these liberties every day. Even though civil liberties were embedded into the Bill of Rights in the late 1800’s, we today, as Americans, still have the right to be protected against any abusive power used by the government (Bianco & Canon, 2015, p. 106). Although Americans are protected fully today, it took over a century for all civil liberties to be implemented. With several civil liberties in place, which is most important? Which liberty protects us as Americans, most significantly? I believe all of our civil liberties are equally as beneficial and lead to the safety of every citizen in the United

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the symbolic wearing of armbands couldn’t be shown to interfere with school discipline, and decided that the free expression of public school students can only be restricted if it threatens a material and substantial disruption of the educational process, or invades the rights of others (Your 1st).

In Des Moines, Iowa in 1968, three students arrived at their schools wearing black armbands symbolizing their thoughts on the United States being involved in the Vietnam War. The principal of each school quickly created a policy banning the armbands. This soon led to the suspension of the students from school. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of the students that eventually made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. The fact that the schools were regulating the children’s freedom of speech is wrong and unconstitutional.

In order to the reason for decision made in the District Court that he school authorities was reasonable because it was based upon their fear of a disturbance from the wearing of the armbands. However,This point would not be convincing under the law system in United States. “Undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” Exactly as what the supreme court have claimed, fear is not a rational excuse to say no to freedom of express. In fact that all opinions that is not majority are the potential “threat” that might cause troubles or inspire fear. Sure enough that among millions of students there would be major opinions and minor opinions all the time, even about the test in school, the Vietnam War was such a significant issues that United States got involved, There must be divergence between students which is potentially harmful. Our Constitution said that we must take this risk. In the case Terminiello v.Chicago in 1949, the case have fully demonstrate the necessity to take the risk and comprehensive those

The students in Tinker were wearing black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 504 (1969). School officials suspended students when they refused to remove the bands because they believed they would provoke classroom disruptions and violence, though none had occurred at that point. Id. The Supreme Court held in Tinker that the schools could not prohibit the expression of an unpopular opinion unless such prohibition “is necessary to avoid substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.” Id. at 511. The students in Tailor by contrast were protesting the United States’ response to 9/11 and began throwing paper and water bottles around the classroom during their protest.

A group of friends met at 16 year old Christopher Eckhardt’s house to discuss their protest of the Vietnam war. The children wanted the Vietnam to end with a truce, and planned on peacefully protesting the United States’ involvement. They planned on wearing black armbands around the Christmas holiday, and planned on not eating any food on December 16th, and christmas eve. However, when the school district found out, they had an emergency meeting on December 14th. The school board decided to suspend anyone that didn’t take their wristbands off. On the first day, two children were suspended, and a third student on the second day. The parents sued the school for violating the student’s rights, and wanted to make sure their children weren’t punished. The Supreme Court debated whether or not the school’s prohibition against wearing armbands in public schools, as a form of protest, violates the student’s freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment. Seven justices believed that the school district represented pure speech that is separate from the actions of those participating in the protest. The Court declared that students do not lose their rights when they walk onto school property. The Court also decided that school districts need to be able to prove that the actions interfered with the school’s operation in order to take away student’s freedom of speech. In this case, the

According to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Yet, in the United States at this very moment, the government is collecting information on everyone who makes a call, sends an email, plays a video game, or even owns a computer. They are in people’s houses without actually having to be there. This collection of information is unlawful, and unconstitutional, violating exactly what the government

Privacy is a natural right that needs to be kept because if it is not a free society cannot function as one. If we give up our total privacy, we give up our freedom, which in essence throws away our liberal society. Every individual enjoys the act of being alone because it allows him or her to be themselves without facing any type of judgment. Every individual would cringe at the thought of being watched at all hours, while eating, sleeping, communicating, or participating in another activity. I would would feel embarrassed and petrified to know that every time I took a shower I was being watched. Everyone enjoys his or her right to privacy in America. In my opinion, the government has no right to invade our privacy because not everyone is a criminal and gather all this information

Juries are one of the most important facets of the democratic process, so preserving them would guarantee the continued existence of democracy in America. Additionally, preserving the jury system would help ensure an adherence to traditional American legal values and principles (Law Teacher, 2016). Preserving the jury system would also ensure that every citizen maintains their right to bring large corporations to justice and to fight for themselves (Faxon Law Group, 2016). Moreover, having a jury leads to a more fair trial, because the opinion of the jury is much less likely to be biased than that of a single judge (Sacks, 1965). One of the most important issues facing this generation is how to preserve the civil jury system for the ones to come.

Would you like to get suspended from school because of what you believe in? Three students from Des Moines, Iowa were suspended for wearing armbands to protest for Vietnam War until the students came back with the armbands off. The students were John F. Tinker, fifteen years old, Christopher Eckhardt, sixteen years old, and Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinkers younger sister. Students should be allowed to freely protest against the Government’s policy as long as it doesn’t affect or disrupt the learning environment.

Des Moines Independent Community School District is the single most influential U.S. Supreme court case on school free speech. It was noted from this case that: “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate.” The 1969 case involved Iowa students and their rights to wear black armbands in school to symbolically protest against the Vietnam War. In this case the court concluded that wearing armbands is a form of symbolic speech “akin to pure speech” and that the act was a “non-disruptive, passive expression of a political viewpoint”. Furthermore, the court went on to say “that a fundamental right of freedom of expression cannot be squelched due to a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompanies an unpopular

Legal historian Geoffrey Stones claims that the government of the United States has in the past overreacted in times of war and crisis, and has seriously violated many civil liberties. A democracy requires high levels of civil rights, liberties, and political openness in order for its citizens to fully participate in political election, and other governmental activities; however, the demands of national security usually require much less openness, secrecy, and limitations on civil rights and liberties. Throughout history there have been times were large numbers of individuals have experienced political discrimination and have had great difficulty exercising their civil liberties. Ethnic minority groups, and immigrants have been among the most targeted by the government in times of crisis. Under conditions of war, American civil liberties and political participation are usually curtailed and violated in many ways by the government, usually with the active support of some groups and people in society. Times of national security threat are often accompanied by what historian Richard Hofstadter calls “the paranoid style in American politics.” In other words, war produces preoccupation with internal threats to national security, and some groups with in society are targeted as security ricks because of their ethnic or political belief. This paper will briefly explore different times and crisis were civil liberties have been obstructed by the government for national security

The definition of the word privacy, according to Dictionary.com is, “The state of being apart from other people or concealed from their view”. The right to feel safe and secure is one that citizens are privileged to have. Although the Government’s use of spying techniques is an invasion of privacy some would argue that the positive effects far outweigh the negative. The ability to increase security, prevent attacks, and provide safety to citizens are just some of the positive effects of Government surveillance. Freedom of privacy comes with being an American, but some citizens are not ready to give up that basic right for added protection (Mullikin and Rahman). There has to be a balance of privacy for some and security for others.