Projekt skončil v roce 2013

Moje přihlášky

Přihlásit se | Zaregistrovat se

zpět na titulní stránku

seznam všech víkendových akcí

Vnitřní a vnější motivace, tresty a odměny, jejich rizika a co namísto nich

Termín:3.11.2012 - 4.11.2012 (sobota - 9.00-12.00, 14.00-17.00, neděle - 9.00-12.00)
Místo konání:Sluňákov - víkendové aktivity a letní škola
Anotace:Seminář se bude zabývat pochopením podstaty motivace, rozdílem mezi vnitřní a vnější motivací. Těžiště pak bude v podrobnější analýze dvou základních nástrojů vnější motivace – trestů a odměn se zaměřením na jejich velká rizika (zejména krátkodobost účinku, posilování zvnitřnění mocenského modelu mezilidských vztahů, utvrzování účelového chování, dopad na vztahy mezi učitelem a žákem, rizika na utváření osobnosti, její morální vývoj apod.).
Pojmy trest, přirozený důsledek (negativní i pozitivní), odměna, pochvala, zpětná vazba. Z oblasti vnitřní motivace se probírají způsoby, jakými je možné tuto motivaci podporovat a udržovat. Seminář nabízí klockor kopior sverige také alternativní postupy pro situace nevhodného chování žáků, jakož i alternativy k odměnám a pochvalám.
Celodenní strava v sobotu a půldenní v neděli včetně pití je hrazena z grantu, nic si brát nemusíte. Ubytování je možné za 150Kč/noc, to si prosíme vyřiďte individuálně s paní Vyhňákovou ze Sluňákova:
Jinak vzhledem k tomu, že do Horky jede MHD, není to na večerní odjezd a ranní příjezd náročné.

Can a Christian flag fly at City Hall? The Supreme Court will should determine

Mark Satta does no longer work for, consult, very own shares in or receive funding from any organisation or enterprise that could advantage from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their educational appointment.
View all partners
There are three flagpoles outdoor Boston City Hall. One flies america flag. Another flies the Massachusetts country flag. What can – and might’t – fly from the third is an problem being taken up by way of the Supreme Court.
On Jan. 18, 2022, the Supreme Court will pay attention oral arguments in Shurtleff v. Boston. The case addresses whether or not the city violated the First Amendment by using denying a request to quickly enhance the Christian flag on a flagpole outdoor City Hall, in which Boston has quickly displayed many secular companies’ flags.
The case raises important questions about loose speech at a time whilst many participants of the Supreme Court appear concerned about regulations on faith. The court’s choice will possibly clarify one or greater unfastened speech doctrines, impacting how courts national interpret the First Amendment’s guarantees.
Shurtleff v. Boston also highlights disagreements approximately the character and scope of freedom of speech, the kind of disputes I take a look at in my work on free speech and the First Amendment.
Boston allows businesses to request that a flag briefly fly alongside the American and Massachusetts flags at City Hall to mark special occasions, replacing the city flag that commonly occupies the 1/3 submit. Past examples consist of flag requests from the Chinese Progressive Association and the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation.
In 2017, Camp Constitution, a New Hampshire-primarily based employer, asked to fly the Christian flag, which has a pass inside the top left corner and changed into designed by means of a Sunday college trainer and a missionary govt inside the past due 1800s. Today, some Protestant denominations show the flag inner their churches.
Camp Constitution requested to fly the flag as a part of a planned occasion “to have fun the civic contributions of Boston’s Christian network.” The organisation says its task is “to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage, our American history of courage and ingenuity, including the genius of our United States Constitution, and the application of loose organization.”
Boston denied the request. The town mentioned worries that elevating the Christian flag at Boston City Hall would violate the First Amendment’s status quo clause, which bars the government from promoting particular religions over others. After creating a second request, which Boston additionally denied, Camp Constitution sued.
A federal district courtroom and the First Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Boston seeing that flying a flag at the third flagpole became authorities speech, no longer personal speech – and consequently the metropolis turned into entitled to refuse to fly the Christian flag on its flagpole.
Camp Constitution appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted review.
The case’s final results will in all likelihood hinge at the Supreme Court’s willpower of whose views are represented with the aid of the flagpole out of doors City Hall: the non-public company whose flag is quickly flying, or the government. In other words, this example is set who is “talking” while that flag is going up, and whose loose speech rights are blanketed.
If the courtroom determines that Camp Constitution is speakme, then a framework the court has developed, known as the “public discussion board doctrine,” will practice. This would in all likelihood bring about a ruling favoring Camp Constitution.
If the court determines that the metropolis of Boston is talking, then the court’s government speech doctrine will observe. This could probably bring about a ruling favoring Boston.
Federal, nation and nearby governments oversee a huge style of public areas, inclusive of parks, universities and courthouses, just to call a few. These regions serve one-of-a-kind capabilities, some of which require more law of speech than others.
The Supreme Court has organized authorities spaces into several categories, each of which lets in distinct types of regulations on unfastened speech. This set of classes and authorised regulations is called the public forum doctrine.
Spaces like public parks and sidewalks are taken into consideration public boards, the class that lets in the fewest regulations on speech. In a public discussion board, a government can by no means restrict speech based totally on viewpoint – precise positions on a topic – and is severely restricted as to whilst it could restrict speech based totally on content – a given subject matter.
Normally, a flagpole out of doors a metropolis hall might not be taken into consideration a public discussion board. However, the Supreme Court also acknowledges a separate class, “particular public forums,” that are spaces the government converts into public forums. In a chosen public forum, unfastened speech law is confined inside the equal manner it would be in a public discussion board.
In Shurtleff v. Boston, both events agree that the vicinity surrounding the flagpole is a public discussion board. But they disagree over whether the flagpole itself is a designated public discussion board. Camp Constitution argues that Boston has turned the flagpole into a delegated public forum by permitting different businesses to fly their flags there. Meanwhile, Boston argues that it has not, because the city retained manipulate by permitting limited types of agencies to elevate their flags.
Camp Constitution notes that Boston formerly accredited 284 requests to raise different flags, and that there is no file of a previous request being denied.
But Boston counters that none of those preceding requests have been for non secular flags. The town argues that most effective two kinds of flags were authorized: flags representing territories, international locations and ethnicities, and flags related to publicly recognized days of observance, together with Veterans Day and LGBTQ Pride Month. Boston argues that such limited classes of approval are not what one would expect in a delegated public discussion board, and that that is proof that Boston has no longer became its flagpole into a chosen public forum.
[3 media shops, 1 faith newsletter. Get testimonies from The Conversation, AP and RNS.]
Over 30 years in the past, in Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that the government itself is a speaker with First Amendment rights – an concept referred to as the government speech doctrine. Government speech is not challenge to the general public discussion board doctrine. Instead, the authorities has plenty more discretion in determining which messages it endorses.
Boston argues that elevating a flag on the 0.33 flagpole at City Hall is authorities speech and consequently the town has the proper to decide what perspectives it desires to explicit on its flagpole. Camp Constitution disagrees, retaining that the flagpole is a designated public discussion board and consequently few restraints on private businesses’ free speech are allowed at the flagpole.
Both parties’ arguments depend upon competing interpretations of the authorities speech doctrine recommend through the Supreme Court in two instances, Pleasant Grove v. Summum and Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.
In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Pleasant Grove v. Summum that the everlasting monuments in a park owned and operated by way of the metropolis have been government speech. The Supreme Court’s unanimous choice allowed the metropolis to deny a request from a small spiritual institution, Summum, to install a permanent monument expressing its beliefs, despite the fact that the park had previously customary a monument of the Ten Commandments.
In 2015, the Supreme Court held in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans that license plates have been authorities speech. This authorized Texas to disclaim a request for a specialty license plate proposing the Confederate flag, even though Texas supplied a wide range of different area of expertise plates. Unlike Pleasant Grove v. Summum, this situation became determined by a slim 5-four majority.
Shurtleff v. Boston will in all likelihood require the court to in addition clarify the authorities speech doctrine. The vital difficulty is that this: When another flag briefly replaces Boston’s own, who is speakme?

Write an editorial and be a part of a developing community of more than 139,400 lecturers and researchers from 4,242 institutions.

South Carolina Bowling Green Workers' Compensation Lawyers

Lektoři:PhDr. Dobromila Nevolová
PhDr. Jana Nováčková, CSc.