CIVIL LIBERTIES

Presented by Kevin Page, Susana Mollick, Ashley Chu,

Derek Nelsen, Saera Alam, and Derya Rodoplu

Politics, Culture, and Civil Liberties

• Three types of liberties that have the potential to become major issues:– rights in conflict (interest group politics)– passions inflamed by a skilled policy entrepreneur

(entrepreneurial politics)– instances where the political culture of the US contains

principles that conflict with one another.

• Most Americans accept the political culture and the contradictions it contains.

• However, we tend to favor certain aspects of this culture over others.

• For example, the belief of “Americanism” is held at a higher standard than personal freedoms.

• Civil liberties is considered to be a set of principles that protect the rights of all citizens all the time.

• The Constitution and the Bill of Rights contain competing rights and duties.

• This competition is proved when in an argument, one person uses one constitutional right to prove their point of view, but the second person is also able to use a constitutional duty to assert their claim.

Politics, Culture, and Civil Liberties

Politics, Culture, and Civil Liberties

• America’s founding laws favor the values and habits of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

• Due to the recent spike in immigration, people of various ethnicities and religions have settled in America.

• The old laws no longer represent the majority of Americans causing certain beliefs of different backgrounds than the “original” Americans to be disregarded.

Who is a Person?

Everyone has freedom of speech Some have more rights than others Kids have less freedom Minors opinions are less significant Companies and corporations are told what they can or

cannot advertise They can be told to take something out In reality there really is nothing such as “freedom of speech”

because they are all told what to do & what to say

Interpreting and Applying the First AmendmentConsists of two main parts

◦Freedom of expression◦Freedom of religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Speech and National Security William Blackstone in his Commentaries, which were

published in 1765, first articulated the idea of freedom of speech as well as freedom of press.

The U.S. Sedition act of 1798 was similar to the Britain’s rules; a publisher was responsible for the work that they chose to publish.

1917- 1918 the government placed restrictions on articles, which supported treason, forcible resistance, or insurrection against any laws or federal organizations such as the military.

Supreme Court case of Charles T. Schneck led to the clear-and-present-danger test.

During WWII 11 communist leaders were convicted for advocating the violent overthrowing of the United States, this violated the Smith Act of 1940.

Speech and National Security In 1969 Clarence Brandenburg of the KKK was convicted for

making an attempt to incite a lawless mob action.

The Supreme Court overturned this because they claimed that any speech that does not call for or provoke illegal acts is protected.

This meant no matter how vulgar or offensive some things were, these statements are protected under the constitution.

1977 Nazi parade in Illinois protected by Constitution

Speech and National Security William Blackstone in his Commentaries, which were

published in 1765, first articulated the idea of freedom of speech as well as freedom of press.

The U.S. Sedition act of 1798 was similar to the Britain’s rules; a publisher was responsible for the work that they chose to publish.

1917- 1918 the government placed restrictions on articles, which supported treason, forcible resistance, or insurrection against any laws or federal organizations such as the military.

Supreme Court case of Charles T. Schneck led to the clear-and-present-danger test.

Speech and National Security During WWII 11 communist leaders were convicted for

advocating the violent overthrowing of the United States, this violated the Smith Act of 1940.

In 1969 Clarence Brandenburg of the KKK was convicted for making an attempt to incite a lawless mob action. The Supreme Court overturned this because they claimed that any speech that does not call for or provoke illegal acts is protected.

This meant no matter how vulgar or offensive some things were, these statements are protected under the constitution.

1977 Nazi parade in Illinois protected by Constitution

What is Speech? There are four forms of speech that are not granted full

constitutional protection. Libel Obscenity Symbolic Speech False Advertising 

Libel A written statement defaming the character of a person. In order to sue another person for libel, you must prove that the publication

was false and damaging and that the words were published with “actual malice”.

Actual Malice - reckless disregard for their truth or falsity with knowledge that they were false

Obscenity Offensive to decency There is no clear and set definition of what is categorized as obscene. During Miller v. California (1971), the Court created a three point test, called

The Miller Test, to determine whether something is obscene or not.

What is Speech?Miller Test A three point test to determine whether something is obscene or

not.1) whether it appeals to prurient interest2) whether it is obscene according to community standards3) whether the work lacks a scientific, literary, political,

artistic purpose

Symbolic Speech A legal term in the United States law used to describe actions that

purposefully convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it.

In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. They were suspended when they refused to remove the armbands.

The Court ruled that wearing armbands was symbolic speech which is protected by the First Amendment.

CHURCH AND STATE• The First Amendment does not require the

separation of church and state, contrary to popular belief

• Free-Exercise Clause– Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise

of religion– Courts treat religion like the freedom of speech as long

as it does not harm others– Laws that apply only to churches may be

unconstitutional if it is legal in the federal government – The right to practice religion does not exempt you from

the law, even if the law is against your religious beliefs

CHURCH AND STATE• Establishment Clause

– Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

– Wall-of-separation principle: no government involvement with religion at all

– The government cannot make a person profess a belief or disbelief in any religion, cannot aid any religion at all and cannot spend any tax money to support any religious activities or institutions

Search and Seizure Search and seizure is a legal procedure where police

can search the personal belongings of citizens if they suspect a crime is being committed.

This system, established in order to minimize crime on the streets and terrorist activity, generates the fear of the “unreasonable search”.

In order to cease confusion about what dictates a reasonable search we can provide an outline of criteria determining what is and is not reasonable however we are left with the problem of protecting people against such searches but this must be done in a way as to not obstruct criminal investigation.

Search and Seizure Two ways in which nations solve this issue:

◦ Use collected evidence to prosecute defendant and after case is closed punish the officer or his superior if evidence was collected improperly

◦ Eliminate improperly collected evidence completely from trial even if it is a key factor in determining innocence or guilt

Exclusionary rule- evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution cannot be used in trial◦ Implemented “the right to be free form unreasonable searches

and seizures” in the fourth amendment and “the right not to be compelled to give evidence against oneself” in the fifth amendment

◦ Supreme court did not believe the exclusionary rule needed to be enforced (while the fourth amendment was in place) to guide proper evidence collection by the police until the Mapp v. Ohio case where police officers broke into a house in search of drugs but found none and instead arrested the suspect for possessing obscene pictures.

What constitutes “proper” or “reasonable” evidence collection? Evidence collected under a judge appointed search warrant or

collected while suspect is in custody ◦ Search warrant- order by a judge authorizing the search of a

location under suspicion. Judge can only issue warrant if there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and evidence advancing persecution will be found at the location.

◦ After you have been arrested you, things in plain view and things/place under your immediate control are liable to being searched by the police

What determines “plain view” and “under immediate control” changes frequently and on the situation◦ If you get arrested in your kitchen, the police need a warrant

to search your bedroom, your car etc. however if the police arrest you outside for drinking and then accompany you to your room while you search for your ID to show them that you are above 21 and they spot marijuana they can arrest you for that.

Reasonable Expectation of PrivacyThe body is one personal feature the court tries

to involve themselves little in:◦ If you have a bullet lodged in your chest that determines

your guilt or innocence the court cannot force you to have surgery to remove it but they can require a breathalyzer test if they suspect you of DUI

Your home◦ The police must respect your privacy at home however

the barn next to your house does not demand that kind of respect

Your work◦ If you work for the government it is reasonable to assume

your desk and files are private however a supervisor can rummage through them without a warrant under one condition, if he/she is looking for something work related

Miranda v. Arizona Constitutional ban on being forced to give evidence against

oneself, or confess was intended to put an end to torture tactics or “third-degree” police tactics to extract such confessions◦ These confessions could not be trusted as people will say

anything in order to stop being tortured

Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and raping a women, his guilt was determined by a written confession that he signed after being interrogated by the police for two hours. Years earlier the courts decided to rule against self-incrimination so now they were faced with the question of what constituted an “involuntary confession”?◦ It was decided that a confession is considered voluntary if

it is done after the defendant has been informed of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney provided free of charge if need be.

Terrorism and Civil Liberties

Shortly after September 11 2003 Congress passed US Patriot Act which was designed to increase federal power to investigate terrorist activity◦ Telephone taps: government can tap any telephone a

suspect uses◦ Internet taps: government can tap Internet

communications◦ Voice mail: seize voice mail◦ Grand jury information: investigators can share with

government information learned in grand jury hearings◦ Immigration: attorney general may hold up any citizen

believed to be a national security risk up to seven days.◦ Money laundering: government is allowed to track money

across US boarders and among banks◦ Crime: eliminates statue of limitation on terrorist crimes

and increase penalties