Freedoms Vs. Protections

When freedoms and protections collide it ends in different results, usually ending with freedoms ruling over unless it is endangering. Freedoms are only to a certain extent and protections are only to a certain point. When they collide it is up to the court, like in the case of Near Vs. Minnesota. When a man named Jay Near published a scandal sheet and attacked local officials, saying they were involved with gangsters. The officials attempted to stop him from publishing this with a state law that said any person “engaged in the business of regularly circulating an obscene, lewd, and lascivious newspaper was guilty of nuisance”. Although this was a state law, the first amendment allowed this and it was ruled unconstitutional. The Court established even the government could not censor or prohibit a publication, although it is punishable. Freedoms winning out against protections, the publication was allowed but if it endangered the lives of many people or accused people of acts they have not done it could be brought to court and would be punishable.
In the case of Texas Vs. Johnson, in public Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in the protest of Reagan administrative policies. Once again the the person was charged under a state law, this time the law outlawed flag desecration. He was to be sent to jail for a year and fined 2000 dollars. But the Texas Court of Criminals reversed the conviction and passed it on to Supreme Court. Although it was once again against the state law, the state law went too far in preventing amendment number 1. This case was ruled unconstitutional and Gregory was safe from punishment. He has the freedom to expressive conduct and this act was distinctively a political act against Reagan’s policies. The Supreme Court stated that even though they might take offense from the act it is not justifiable to prohibit speech. Nobody was endangered and freedoms won out again. The state could not keep him from using symbols as speech and his freedoms were protected.
Then in the case of Mapp. Vs. Ohio, the police illegally searched her home for a fugitive and tried to convict her of “possessing obscene materials”. She decided to fight this with the freedom of expression. The courts decided that instead of it violating the first amendment it more clearly violated the fourth amendment. Mapp was convicted on illegally obtained evidence, which is a huge issue on how far should a person’s freedoms protect them. This case was ruled unconstitutional, but if people’s lives were at stake this amendment might be ruled out and if Mapp was endangering other people, she might be in prison today. Her freedoms protected her but to only an extent, if the protection of other peoples was involved that freedom would not be hers.
In the case of Gideon Vs. Wainright, Gideon was for breaking and entering. He was unable to hire a lawyer and because of this could not prepare a defense. He requested the court give him a lawyer and they denied his request. He ended up defending himself and was sentenced to five years in prison. Due to the 6th and 14th amendments the court unanimously decided to overrule the decision because he had a right to be represented by an attorney. This time his freedom and his protections were combined. He had the freedom to have a court appointed attorney and he should have the protection of a court appointed attorney. The 6th amendment guaranteed counsel and this was a right needed to have a “fair trial”, which this was against the 14th amendment which gave the right of a fair trial. Overall, this trial denied Gideon of his freedoms and his protections the constitution gave him, and was ruled unconstitutional.
In all four cases freedoms and protections collided. Although freedoms won out most of the time it could not every time. When other people’s lives were at stake protections would kick in and kick freedoms out, which did not happen in any of these cases, nobody was threatened except for the person taken to court. If lives were in danger Protections would be put in and a person’s every day freedoms would be denied.