How rights and liberties protect persons in society?
Answers
Answered by
0



About Us
Video Series
Prof. Development
Licensing
Lesson Plans
Interactives
News
Blog

Topic Overview Unit 4
Civil Liberties: Safeguarding the Individual
Learning Objectives
After completing this session, you will be able to:
Emphasize the role that the concept of liberty plays in American government.
Illustrate the Bill of Rights in action.
Evaluate the myth of absolute liberty.
Describe the modern tests of the limits of free press.
Show how liberties can conflict with one another.
This unit explores the concept of civil liberties in American life, distinguishing civil liberties from civil rights and illuminating some of the problems encountered in protecting civil liberties. As the unit points out, most of us have a conception of the Bill of Rights as a list of absolutes, but this has never been the case. At some point, as our courts have often recognized, the exercise of civil liberties conflicts with other values that we also hold dear. The result is that we have frequently balanced liberty against order. The unit also demonstrates what happens when civil liberties collide.
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment contains several important rights that guarantee a person's basic civil liberties including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom to practice one's own religion. Our civil liberties are protected against government restriction and the interference of others, but they are not absolute. That's because our rights often collide, and thus must be balanced against each other in ways that promote the public good for all citizens. Americans have never fully agreed on where the balance should be struck in all cases.
In specifying what the government cannot do, the Bill of Rights is an important source of our civil liberties that cannot be taken away even when popular majorities at the local, state, or national level vote to restrict them. Some protections provided by the Bill of Rights, such as the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, are written in vague terms that often require judicial interpretation.
The First Amendment to the Constitution contains several prohibitions against national government power. It states that Congress cannot:
Restrict freedom of speech, the press, or the right of people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Restrict an individual or group's free exercise of religion.
Promote any religion.
While the First Amendment has been a bulwark against overbearing government throughout American history, courts have interpreted the scope and substance of First Amendment liberties differently. Originally written during a time when there were no telephones, radio, television, or computers, the exact meanings of the free speech and press guarantees in the First Amendment have necessarily been redefined and reinterpreted ever since.
The courts have never considered the rights enshrined in the First Amendment, or in the entire Bill of Rights, to be absolute. Instead, when one right clashes with another, as when a person's freedom of speech right clashes with another person's right to privacy, the courts must balance the conflicting rights and consider where one right should give way to the other. For example, most people would agree that a person's right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre (or "bomb!" on a passenger jet for that matter) is negated by the larger public value of keeping people safe from being trampled to death.
In weighing competing values such as free speech and public safety, the courts have developed a series of tests to help them find the right balance that is in keeping with prior court decisions. The clear and present danger test, for example, says that government may restrict speech to prevent grave and immediate dangers. Courts later added the bad tendency test, which says that speech that poses an indirect and future danger may still be restricted. In some cases the courts have denied the media's right to report facts (e.g., the names of criminal defendants or their victims) if such reporting clashes with other protected rights, such as a defendant's right to a fair trial.


About Us
Video Series
Prof. Development
Licensing
Lesson Plans
Interactives
News
Blog

Topic Overview Unit 4
Civil Liberties: Safeguarding the Individual
Learning Objectives
After completing this session, you will be able to:
Emphasize the role that the concept of liberty plays in American government.
Illustrate the Bill of Rights in action.
Evaluate the myth of absolute liberty.
Describe the modern tests of the limits of free press.
Show how liberties can conflict with one another.
This unit explores the concept of civil liberties in American life, distinguishing civil liberties from civil rights and illuminating some of the problems encountered in protecting civil liberties. As the unit points out, most of us have a conception of the Bill of Rights as a list of absolutes, but this has never been the case. At some point, as our courts have often recognized, the exercise of civil liberties conflicts with other values that we also hold dear. The result is that we have frequently balanced liberty against order. The unit also demonstrates what happens when civil liberties collide.
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment contains several important rights that guarantee a person's basic civil liberties including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom to practice one's own religion. Our civil liberties are protected against government restriction and the interference of others, but they are not absolute. That's because our rights often collide, and thus must be balanced against each other in ways that promote the public good for all citizens. Americans have never fully agreed on where the balance should be struck in all cases.
In specifying what the government cannot do, the Bill of Rights is an important source of our civil liberties that cannot be taken away even when popular majorities at the local, state, or national level vote to restrict them. Some protections provided by the Bill of Rights, such as the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, are written in vague terms that often require judicial interpretation.
The First Amendment to the Constitution contains several prohibitions against national government power. It states that Congress cannot:
Restrict freedom of speech, the press, or the right of people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Restrict an individual or group's free exercise of religion.
Promote any religion.
While the First Amendment has been a bulwark against overbearing government throughout American history, courts have interpreted the scope and substance of First Amendment liberties differently. Originally written during a time when there were no telephones, radio, television, or computers, the exact meanings of the free speech and press guarantees in the First Amendment have necessarily been redefined and reinterpreted ever since.
The courts have never considered the rights enshrined in the First Amendment, or in the entire Bill of Rights, to be absolute. Instead, when one right clashes with another, as when a person's freedom of speech right clashes with another person's right to privacy, the courts must balance the conflicting rights and consider where one right should give way to the other. For example, most people would agree that a person's right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre (or "bomb!" on a passenger jet for that matter) is negated by the larger public value of keeping people safe from being trampled to death.
In weighing competing values such as free speech and public safety, the courts have developed a series of tests to help them find the right balance that is in keeping with prior court decisions. The clear and present danger test, for example, says that government may restrict speech to prevent grave and immediate dangers. Courts later added the bad tendency test, which says that speech that poses an indirect and future danger may still be restricted. In some cases the courts have denied the media's right to report facts (e.g., the names of criminal defendants or their victims) if such reporting clashes with other protected rights, such as a defendant's right to a fair trial.
luckynagar:
please click the button of branlest
and thank you
pleaee
please
Similar questions