Sources of information about operational tecniques, suc as ow to create bombs, develop poisons or to carry out effective violent attacks. Wenever te subject of terrorism comes up, te question of ow to balance law-abiding Americans' rigts to individual freedom wit te need for public safety inevitably must be addressed. Inin Holder v.
The importance of Freedom of Speech and Expression is easily appreciated by every citizen. It is said that in every democratic society, every individual is a particle of sovereignty. He is as much a component in the running of the affairs of the country as his Senators and Representatives.
As such every citizen has the right to offer his views and suggestions in the discussion of the common problems of the community or the nation.
It must be stressed that this is not only a right but a solemn duty of every citizen. The First Amendment explicitly empowered each of us to speak up and be heard. It applied, generally speaking to everyone. Nowhere in the First Amendment did the framers say that this provision did not apply to certain individuals — most particularly the students.
The most disappointing part however is that Freedom of Expression seems not to have application among students while they are inside the university or college campus.
Though the exercise of freedom of expression by students in freedom parks and in other public areas is well-settled, there is however much debate insofar as the exercise of freedom of expression by students while inside the campus.
It seems that the students are not protected from constitutional violations of the school administrators, principals and teachers whenever they step inside their own campus.
One of the justifications for restricting the exercise of Freedom of Expression while inside the school campus is the concept of in loco parentis.
This means that the school administrators and teachers have special parental authority over their students and pupils while they are within the custody of the school. This special parental authority imposes upon them liabilities for any harm that may befall upon their students while they are within the control of the school officials.
As such they are authorized to restrict certain conducts which violate school policy. Another justification for restricting the exercise of Freedom of Expression is its responsibility to promote an environment that is conducive to learning. A university or college is an institution of learning.
The school may not be able to perform its function of transmitting knowledge and giving birth to new ideas if the students are distracted by acts and conducts which interferes with learning. Thus, it becomes the responsibility of the school to suppress and limit certain conduct so that the administrators are able to promote learning.
Because of the diversity of cultures, races, sexual preferences and orientations of the students in the school, personality clashes are bound to arise. Though these students may not actually inflict physical harm against the minority students, their personality clashes may cross the line of simple diversity and may actually result to one group of students inflicting verbal assaults and hateful language or even violence.
As a result one group of student belonging to a particular race or culture may actually be harassed by the others. Thus, school administrators have the duty not only to promote an atmosphere of learning for the students, but also to promote respect amidst these diversity.
Reasons why Exercise of Freedom of Expression should be Upheld Freedom of thought and expression are essential to any educational institutions. As Socrates, the Greek Philosopher once said, educational institutions exist not only to transmit to their students established and existing knowledge but they must also help their students expand these established knowledge or give birth to new ideas and knowledge.
Schools serve as a training ground for students to market their ideas. If these ideas will be restricted and curtailed then the quality of ideas that we have for our society will remain stagnant.
Also, the kinds of citizens that our country will have will be similar to automated robots who do not know how to think for themselves. We cannot risk the future of our society to ideas that have not withstood the tests of time and the test of competition in the market of ideas.
It is sad that the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court, does not seem to have a clear stand on this issue. In some cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in favor of the students thereby upholding their First Amendment right.
On the other hand, in some cases the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the school officials thereby restricting their First Amendment rights.
In this case, three students wore their armband to school as an expression if their objection to the hostility in Vietnam and their support for a truce.
They were however suspended by the school officials. According to the Supreme Court, the wearing of an armband for the purpose of expressing certain views and opinions is the type of symbolic act that is covered by the protection of the First Amendment.
It is foolhardy to believe that the students and teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression once they enter their school campus.
There was also no indication that the students who wore armband disrupted the class. The argument therefore by the school authorities that their act was reasonable based on their fear of a disturbance that the act may create from the wearing of armband is untenable. On the other hand, the Supreme Court took a different position in the case of Hazelwood School District v.
The principal however objected and wanted these parts removed. According to the Supreme Court, though the students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of expression at the schoolhouse gate, it must however be emphasized that the First Amendment rights of students in public school are not automatically the same with the rights of adults in other settings and must be applied in the light of the special characteristics of the school environment.U.S.
counter-terrorism policies negatively affected individual rights and liberties of law-Abiding U.S. citizens US counterterrorism efforts have adversely affected human rights in ways that alarmists had warned.
Civil liberties topic. Civil liberties or personal freedoms are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation, without due process. Source: New York Post. The Boston Police Department used a social media surveillance system to keep tabs on black and Muslim protesters — gathering thousands of posts about political and social activism, religious issues, and other personal matters “irrelevant to law enforcement concerns,” according to a report released Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union. Essay on Patriot Act Violates Civil Liberties Words 8 Pages Since the terrorist suicide bombed the world trade center and a wing of the pentagon, there has been a change in the relationship between the United States government and the people.
There is a significant degree of government interference for the purposes of security. Oct 28, · 3, That is how many times between October 1, and September 30, , federal judges let the government avoid telling someone that their home or office had been searched, and that law enforcement officers rifled through and potentially even seized their personal belongings.
We contacted the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to obtain up-to-date numbers on how frequently . Essay: Privacy Expectations in Airport Screenings By Meghan Heesch As millions prepare to board flights for Thanksgiving holiday destinations, the TSA’s newest attempt to use technology to balance liberty and security needs has travelers extremely concerned about privacy rights.
Feb 25, · Civil Liberties Essays (Examples) Civil Liberties the United States Is a. View Full Essay. Words: Length: 5 Pages Document Type: Essay Paper #: While the court's trend is moving away from applying the exclusionary rule in civil contexts, law enforcement agencies are increasingly relying on civil tools to attack crime.
At the. Source: New York Post. The Boston Police Department used a social media surveillance system to keep tabs on black and Muslim protesters — gathering thousands of posts about political and social activism, religious issues, and other personal matters “irrelevant to law enforcement concerns,” according to a report released Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Justice Felix Frankfurter was a huge influence on the Supreme Court in the years he sat on the bench, — He is noted for his civil rights and anti-trust decisions.