PSC 21300 Civil Liberties Final Exam
Fall 2024
Due Date: friday, December 13, 11:59
Instructions: You must answer question one and two other questions. Each answer should consist of a full 4-5 paragraph answer (a full paragraph is 5-7 sentences). You will be evaluated on how well you understand the course material and the comprehensiveness and insight of your answers.
As you can see on the paper, I already have 3 of 5 questions done. I only need you to answer the last two, 4 and 5. I will leave the information to answer those questions along with the assignment.
Question 1: Who is a civil libertarian, and what do they seek to protect?
A civil libertarian is a person who stands up for the defense and citizens’ liberties protected by the Constitution and law. Civil libertarians strive to mitigate an expansion of government authority, acting against threats to essential freedoms like free speech or a proper procedure for exercising control over personal data. These rights can be violated by either governmental or institutional, and civil libertarians will always rise to oppose such actions. In general, their main concern is establishing a state where the state, on the one hand, and the individual, on the other hand, keep a reasonable distance.
The two main ideas essential to civil libertarians include the freedom of speech and due process. Freedom of speech, including personal ideas, dissent, criticism, and other forms of opinions, is protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment. Civil libertarian promotes this right against those rules or conducts that seek to limit citizens’ freedoms, as in Schenck v. The United States, where expression was restricted under the “clear and present danger test.” Civil libertarians argue that however these restraints may be recognized, they must be jealously and strictly drawn, for instance, on the grounds of direct incitement to violence (Schenck v. United States, 1919).
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard the right to due process, which means that one cannot be denied life, liberty, or property without the law providing adequate process. The main issues presented by civil libertarians include fair trials, presumption of innocence, and protection from detention. In cases such as Illinois v. Caballes, civil libertarians were required to follow the Principle of Procedural Justice because they wanted to shield persons from oppressive searches or police brutality.
In the absence of civil libertarians, a society would lean towards authoritarianism. When there are no people or organizations to fight for civil liberties, governments or other organizations might impose unjust limitations on people’s liberties. The danger of surveillance without similar consequences and disregarding discrimination could become normalized. Thus, owing to fear of repercussions, every person would be forced to conform, limiting invention, dissent, and the fight for fairness.
Question 2: Why is the concept of reasonable suspicion so important in criminal court cases
The use of reasonable suspicion is significant in the criminal Court since it defines when law enforcement is legally permitted to detain a person for investigation. It must be more than an instinct and must be substantiated by facts, such as that people cannot be stopped and searched randomly as the Fourth Amendment prohibits it. This policy is critical in protecting a person’s privacy rights against incidents that may lead to security violations.
If, for example, a young man walking on the streets comes out of a building, notices the police officer, and instantly changes direction, the issue of a reasonable suspicion will relate to the circumstances. Simply put, the observations made by the officer might be associated with a reasonable suspicion for a search. However, these factors could work in favor of the officer if, for instance, the building is known for drug activities and the officer had been involved in arrests within that particular building. The person might have suddenly changed his behavior and acted evasively, but such behavior cannot be deemed criminal.
As for me, they may not have enough reasonable suspicion to stop the person and stop them based only on his sudden change of direction. Even the experience of the police officer who arrests people who use and deal drugs at the building would link the young man to the building, yet there is no evidence he engaged in any unlawful act. The courts have pointed out that there can be no valid claim to reasonable suspicion stemming only from the fact that a person was in a high crime area or had made a sudden start. For example, in Illinois v. Wardlow (2000), the Supreme Court thought that a mere journey to a high-crime risk area could form part of reasonable suspicion but not in isolation.
However, the Court held that for officers to conduct a stop for a weapon, officers must also meet the Terry v. Ohio standard, which complies with the reasonable suspicion that the person in question is armed and dangerous. In this case, we have no information that the young man was armed or posed a serious threat (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). While the officer’s feelings may have been reasonable, lack of initials and particularized facts putting the man in a criminal context or posing a risk to public safety undermines reasonable suspicion.
Reasonable suspicion is still valuable for police work, but it has to be adequately used so as not to trample on people’s rights. In this case, a stop may not have been good since he violated the constitutional requirement in evaluating suspicion.
Question 3: Select a case that you are familiar with and describe the conflict.
One case that demonstrates conflict between civil liberties and government power is the Dishone v. United States United States (1919) case. The issues in the case concerned the rights of Charles Schenck to publish anti-draft literature during World War I, occasioning his prosecution under the spirit of the Espionage Act of 1917. That free speech was only his right or his freedom of speech, and the government believed that his pamphlets incited the public not to register for the draft, hence a threat to national security.
From the civil libertarian point of view, it would be supposed that Schenck acted lawfully because people’s freedom of speech cannot be shortened even during incidents such as war. Civil libertarians would claim it was wrong because the Espionage Act infringed free speech and the freedom of the press by limiting excessive speech, which led to the stifling of important dissent and critique necessary to democracy (Schenck v. United States, 1919). They may probably argue that Schenck’s pamphlets did not urge people for an immediate expression of violence or posed a concrete and immediate threat but merely held an obscene view against the government policy.
Contrary to this civil libertarianism position, the reasoning of the non-civil libertarians is based on the requirements of war. The government stated that Schenck’s speech had a direct tendency to obstruct the recruitment of the military, which was essential to the nation’s security. In this case, Justice Holmes, speaking for the majority, upheld the ‘clear and present danger test,’ which stated that speech could be removed if it was likely to endanger the security of people or the state. The government triumphed over Schenck’s First Amendment rights to free speech because of the government’s compelling state interests in preserving the social order and the welfare of the war effort.
Opponents of civil libertarians can support their stance with the argument that during wartime, the nation cannot survive without some limitations toward individual freedoms. The Espionage Act was intended to prevent certain activities likely to jeopardize America’s national security during the war, and while Schenck posed no violence to American life, his actions might have interfered with operations crucial to the war effort. This point of view promotes the safety of society above personal freedom during emergencies.
This decision in the Schenck case provided legal policies, but at the same time, controversy arose regarding civil rights, liberties, and governmental power. Some people would say that the case proved the civil libertarians’ warning that the government would use the crisis to curtail free speech rights, whereas others believe that it was only fitting to limit speech during a crisis. This tension underlies the reality of a constitutional exercise of rights when people face national emergencies.
4 Explain the dissents made by Justices Holmes and Douglas in the Free Speech and Political Dissidents cases. Are they the basis of the unanimous decision in Brandenburg? Do you think Brandenburg what decided correctly? If not, explain what you think the decision should have been.
5 State governments around the country have banned books which address issues of sexuality, gender, and race from public libraries, k-12 schools, and even state universities. The book banners claim that raising these issues is harmful to children. What does this say about the popularity of the civil libertarian perspective? Is the civil libertarian perspective strong enough to fight back against this type of censorship?
