翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Lasso (disambiguation)
・ Lasso (musician)
・ Lasso (programming language)
・ Lasso from El Paso
・ Lasso fund
・ Lasso Logic
・ Lasso of Truth
・ Lasso the Moon
・ Lasso, Burkina Faso
・ Lassoes 'N Spurs
・ Lasson
・ Lasson, Calvados
・ Lasson, Yonne
・ Lassonde Industries
・ Lassonde School of Engineering
Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District
・ Lassouts
・ Lasst uns froh und munter sein
・ Lassul Bay
・ Lassur
・ Lassus Castle
・ Lassus Mountains
・ Lasswade
・ Lasswade and Rosewell Parish Church
・ Lasswade High School Centre
・ Lasswade RFC
・ Lasswell
・ Lasswell's model of communication
・ Lassy
・ Lassy Bouity


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District : ウィキペディア英語版
Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District

''Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District'', 320 F. 3d 979 (9th Cir. 2003) is a case about First Amendment freedoms and the separation between church and state. A student of Amador Valley High School claimed a violation of his first amendment right of speech when parts of his salutatorian speech were censored. The case went up to the US Court of Appeals.
This case is an important case in educational law concerning religious expression on school campuses.〔http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip064/2005035476.html〕
==Factual and Procedural History==
Because of his sterling grade-point average of 4.24, Plaintiff was one of two co-salutatorians of the Amador Valley High School class of 1999. As a result of his academic standing, he was invited to deliver a speech at the school's graduation ceremony that year. Plaintiff, who is a devout Christian, drafted a speech that quoted extensively from the Bible. In his declaration, Plaintiff explained that he intended for the speech to "express fellow graduates to develop a personal relationship with God through faith in Christ in order to better their lives."〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=320 F3d 979 Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District )
Principal Coupe, who maintained control over all aspects of the graduation ceremony, asked Plaintiff to submit a draft of his speech. Plaintiff did so. Coupe reviewed the draft and, in conjunction with the school district's counsel, determined that allowing a student to deliver overtly proselytizing comments at a public high school's graduation ceremony would violate the Establishment Clauses of both the United States and the California Constitutions. Accordingly, Coupe and the district's counsel advised Plaintiff that references to God as they related to Plaintiff's own beliefs were permissible, but that proselytizing comments were not.〔
For example, Plaintiff intended to discuss the general moral decay of American society during the past 30 years and to encourage his fellow students to turn to God and Jesus for strength. The three portions of his speech that the school told him to remove were:
I urge you to seek out the Lord, and let Him guide you. Through His power, you can stand tall in the face of darkness, and survive the trends of "modern society."〔
As Psalm 146 says, "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot even save themselves. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing. Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them — the Lord, who remains faithful forever. He upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets prisoners free, the Lord gives sight to the blind, the Lord lifts up those who are bowed down, the Lord loves the righteous. The Lord watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked." ... "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Have you accepted the gift, or will you pay the ultimate price?〔
Although Defendants demanded that Plaintiff excise those portions, they allowed him to retain several personal references to his religion. For example, Plaintiff's speech began with a dedication to the memory of his grandfather, who had planned to attend the graduation but who, just that past week, had gone "home to be with the Lord." Plaintiff's speech closed with the words, "Good Luck and God Bless!"〔
Before Plaintiff agreed to excise the proselytizing portions of the graduation speech, the parties engaged in discussions to determine what Plaintiff would and would not be allowed to say. Plaintiff's counsel suggested that the school district provide a "disclaimer" that would state that the views of the student speakers did not represent the views of the school district. This suggestion was rejected. The parties eventually reached a compromise. Under protest, Plaintiff agreed that he would deliver his speech without the proselytizing passages and would hand out copies of the full text of his proposed draft speech just outside the site where the graduation ceremony would be held.〔
On June 18, 1999, Amador Valley High School held its graduation ceremony. The ceremony took place at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, but it was financed and insured entirely by the school district and was conducted entirely under the school's direction. Plaintiff delivered his speech at the ceremony and distributed handouts as agreed. When he reached the portions of the speech that had been excised, he informed his fellow students that portions had been censored. He told the audience that he would distribute copies of the uncensored speech outside the graduation ceremony and that he would give the full speech on Sunday at his church.〔
Nearly one year later, Plaintiff filed this action seeking damages from the school district; Mary Frances Callan, the school district's superintendent; Jim Negri, assistant superintendent; and Bill Coupe, the principal. Plaintiff asserted seven claims against Defendants: violation of Plaintiff's federal constitutional rights to free speech, religious liberty, and equal protection; violation of Plaintiff's state constitutional rights to free speech, religious liberty, and equal protection; and violation of a state education statute. Defendants answered that their actions were protected by qualified immunity.〔
Both parties moved for summary judgment. After dismissing claims against the school district and the school officials in their individual capacities under the Eleventh Amendment, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining Defendants in their official capacities. Relying on this court's decision in Cole v. Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000), the district court concluded that Defendants' actions were necessary to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The court rejected Plaintiff's equal protection argument and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claim.〔
Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. His appeal is limited to the question whether, under the first step of the qualified immunity analysis required by Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), Plaintiff has alleged facts amounting to a federal constitutional violation. Specifically, the questions posed are whether the restriction on Plaintiff's speech violated the First Amendment and whether the school's rejection of Plaintiff's suggested disclaimer as a "less restrictive" alternative to censoring Plaintiff's speech violated the First Amendment.〔

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.