"Civil Liberties Test"

Why is it that we can call the Bill of Rights “protected freedoms”, but we cannot justify it? When you combine the issues of protections vs. freedoms, the first step is always to keep a balance. The first amendmant adresses both cases of Tinker v. DesMoines and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir in the interests of press freedoms and symbolic speech. With both cases, the matters were not serious enough that an individual needed to be convicted, so the main idea was to find that balance between protecting student rights and limiting them. The student that pronounced her grievances publicly had her own right to free speech, but the school had the right to limit that because of disruption of student learning. With Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir, the freedom of press and speech was condemmed because of the way that they named other students in correspondence with controversial statements. The collision here ultimately came down to the right a school obtains to protect the majority of the student body over the protection of one students’ rights. On either side the outcome may have seen unfair, because of the Prior Restraint acts, but it was crucial that the school administrators put forth the safety of the students who had no control over the article.
Moving onto the 5th amendment, which reads No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, a man was arrested, he confessed to a crime, and then later recanted his confession. Through the crack in the Due Process Amendments, he was uninformed of his rights, specifically that of his right to stay silent. His self incrimination was protected because of the fact that whomever placed him under arrest withheld his rights, and basically didn’t do their job correctly. In this situation, a man who had commited a crime was let go all because he had not been told about a loophole that would protect him. He was a part of a case that was when both protections and freedoms merged to keep him out of jail. Some may say that this is a result of the mixing of the two issues, and that when we put basic rights as stated by the constitution together with governments highest protections, it creates a pool for error within the juidicial system with respects to determining the “right” way to solve, prosecute, and convict a case. On the other hand, people say that the protection of the 5th amendment results in the withholding of information, and therefore the freedom of this certain American because of yet another flaw in the shakey system. When one person does their job incorrectly it can cause a spiral effect of the entire case, and it can, and will almost always result in the freedom of the accused. Not even a confession is free to use in courts against him.
Lastly I would like to talk about the 6th amendment, which concludes with the statement “and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense” a court is liable of keeping together the protection of the people by giving them every basic resource that they may need in court. The case of Gideon v. Wainright was considered a final juiciary malfunction, because as a poor man, he was unable to provide himself with a lawyer and was not appointed one by the courts. And whilehe did not receive that and was sent away, he still had the opportunity to get another trial because of a fault in the decision making of the courts. I believe strongly that the re-trial of this individual and all other cases were not a result in the clash of freedoms and protections, because I think that they coincide and create a balance in the otherwise complicated system. I think that sole reason that the men and women in the 5th and 6th amendment cases are more lucky from the lack of responsibility and knowledge of individuals that did not do their jobs, not that the laws were corrupted or the amendments were flawed. With the first amendment cases, the continuation of protection of students and freedom of speech is crucial on both sides, except in the end it resulted in the sacrifice of one persons freedom so that the protection of a group could be ensured. It is all about weighing the differences, and making the choice that will make more of a positive impact and positive result.