|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 警察抓走母亲，3岁幼女饿死家中(转贴) |
 |
| 所跟贴 |
十几个3K党徒上街游行, 几万民众"围攻" 他们 -- Anonymous - (70 Byte) 2003-6-23 周一, 上午11:31 (506 reads) |
梦
[博客]
[个人文集]
游客
|
|
|
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
Boy Scouts of America, South Florida Council v. Till
136 F.Supp.2d 1295
S.D.Fla.,2001.
March 21, 2001. (Approx. 14 pages)
案情简介：Boy Scouts brought action against school board alleging that their exclusion from school facilities during off-school hours violated First Amendment. On Boy Scouts' motion for preliminary injunction, the District Court, Middlebrooks, J., held that Boy Scouts were likely to prevail on claim.
Motion granted.
我只挑出本案判决中的关键部分：
【引用案例 Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 578 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir.1978).】
... There, our predecessor Court of Appeals ordered a preliminary injunction against a school board's policy denying the Ku Klux Klan the use of a high school gymnasium for what the Klan termed a patriotic meeting on a Saturday morning. The court framed the issue on appeal as follows: may an agency of the state, consistently with the Constitution, condition the off-time use of public school facilities on the political or ideological views of the applicant, on its membership policies, or perhaps on who may be permitted to attend? The school board had argued that the rally would impede desegregation of the parish schools and involve the state in forwarding the KKK's invidious views.
The former Fifth Circuit found these arguments unavailing in the face of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and association. The court noted, "[t]he benefits of the First Amendment are often hard to see, its gifts frequently unwelcome to the majority of the time, but the interest that thinks to make head against it must be a compelling one indeed." Id. at 1126. As for fears of the perception of state involvement in the rally because of use of the school facility, the court opined: "the state is here no more involved in or responsible for the views expressed or for the composition of the groups which express in the forum it creates than the United States is in who makes speeches or holds demonstrations in the mall." Id. at 1128. Instead, the court decided, "it is appellees who would have the state take a hand in the matter by franking those whose ideas and policies it finds suitable for public expression and gagging those it does not and this in the name of equal protection and civil rights." Id.; see also Cuffley v. Mickes, 208 F.3d 702 (8th Cir.2000), cert denied sub nom; Yarnell v. Cuffley 532U.S. 903, 121 S.Ct. 1225, 149 L.Ed.2d 135 (2001)(finding that the State may not deny access to its Adopt-A-Highway program based upon KKK's beliefs and advocacy). [FN10]
作者：Anonymous 在 罕见奇谈 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您不能在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
