Civil Liberties Test

Freedoms and protection collide in many different situations, and when they do, in the court system most of the time protection is more important. Freedoms only go so far as to when the protection of another person is being jeopardized.
In Texas V. Johnson a man burned an American Flag and was arrested for it, but it did not hold up in court because it is a way of free speech. He was not jeopardizing anyone else by doing so, and his actions were perfectly legal and innocent. In this situation, freedoms v protections, freedoms won because he did not endanger anyone else and was not a threat to anyone else, and he has the first amendment to back him up.
In California v Greenwood, a man’s garbage bag was looked through by officers. When they looked through the bag they found illegal substances, which they were not looking for. He was found guilty for having the substances on him, but did this violate his 4th Amendment. No it did not because it was claimed to have been found on the side of the street and any person has right to look inside of it. New Jersey v T.L.O. a girl was accused of smoking in a bathroom of a school, and then had all her things searched. Did this violate the fourth amendment? No because on school grounds, the school officials have a right to go through anything. If a car is parked on school grounds they can ask the owner to open the trunk and search through it. They have that much power so in both of these situation freedoms are deprived because they are in public places with illegal substances and left a bag unattended, or are in a public place creating distraction and endanger the learning environment. It goes back to if the protection of another person, or thing, is jeopardized then there is a right to take action.
In Duncan v Louisiana a man was accused of beating a child and was denied a fair trial. This went against the sixth amendment and he was guaranteed a trial by the fourteenth amendment. So not only did this go against one it went against two amendments. Now where freedoms v protections come into play is that, he has a right to express him anger with the child, but once he laid a hand on him he becomes responsible. He was deprived of his freedoms because he intentionally hit the child causing the child’s protection to vanish. This goes back to when freedoms and protections collide, freedoms will usually win, but when one endangers another person or jeopardizes their freedoms in any way shape or form; action is necessary for officials.