How can you balance individual rights and personal freedoms?

Answer 1

I believe that the governments should give us freedom to do almost anything. and to balance it out, let us know that for some of the wrong things that we might do, that there will be consequences if we get caught. breaking the law is a freedom we have to do, but most of the time, it is just better if we don't do it.

Answer 2

The definitions used for this balancing test have changed, and expanded over the years.

Originally the "test" was, in simple terms: an imminent danger to the public. Today that test is expanded to: an imminent threat to public health, safety and welfare. Many modern city ordinances fail under this test, and ordinances of this nature have an added degree of testing that the ordinance was intended to enforce some aesthetic rule (being an invalid law).

To give examples of these tests, now and then:

• In the late 1800's a female prostitute was walking the street late at night banging a drum to advertise her services on a city street. A Police officer arrested her for disturbing the peace and prostitution. The court ruled that since no citizen complained it was not disturbing the peace, and that prostitution did not constitute a threat to public safety nor a crime under the Corpus Delicti test; so the officer had committed a trespass in arresting her (false arrest). I don't think I need to explain what would happen in today's society for the same thing.

• In the late 1800's a man was arrested for murdering a police officer. The city had passed a new law that prohibited the carrying of firearms within the city limits. A police officer, who was armed in violation of the law (as it was first written), attempted to arrest and disarm the man. The man killed the police officer by shooting him. The court ruled that a law against the carrying of arms was constitutionally invalid (under the 2nd amendment) and that it did not constitute a threat to public safety so the arrest was unlawful; since the arrest was unlawful the police officer could not be protected by his office and was breaking the law, the man was found to have defended himself against an armed criminal - self defense. As in the first case I don't think I need explain what would happen today in the same case.

• In the early 1900's a man had built a stone wall along a public sidewalk to preserve his privacy, the wall was inexpertly built and had fallen down in places. The city filed suit against the man for endangering the public and the court ordered the wall torn down. The court determined that since the wall abutted the public sidewalk and had a very likely potential to fall (since it already had in places) it was an imminent threat to public safety. This test would be no different today.

• The same city in the 1930's filed suit against a man for building an addition to his house without a permit. The court found that the city had not met is burden of proof that the addition endangered the public; it was a private residence that was set back from public access. Today you would probably get the thing torn down (condemnation order).

Answer 3

This is a very difficult question to resolve. Basically, one person's freedom must not infringe on another's rights. In the US the courts decide the balance but the court system is not always fair. Sometimes the wronged party does not have enough money to plead his case even if he has a sound legal argument.

Answer 4

by keeping the people in line and them having their place in government