User:Mattisse/playbox2
Playbox ---- Playbox 3 --- Templates
_______________________________________________________________________
The yingbi, or screen wall, dates back to the Western Zhou Dynasty (11 century B. C. to 771 B.C.).[1]
-
The Nine Dragons Screen in front of the Palace of Tranquil Longevity -
Detail:Nine Dragons Screen
Footnotes
[edit]- ^ "Screen wall". Retrieved 2007-09-04.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help)
External links
[edit]- Screen Walls: More Than Meets the Eye- Chinese Architecture
- Screen Wall
- Mentions screen
- Ancient screen wall unearthed in north China
- Exploring Personal Meanings of State-Society Relations in China
- Chinese architecture chinaodyseeytours
- Chinese architecture Chinese language program
- Palace
Beard v. Banks (Doc et No. 04-1739) was a case decided by United States Supreme Court in which a petitioner, Ronald Banks, challenged the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections policy of denying access to written material such as newspapers and magazines, to Level 2 (disciplinary unit) inmates, on the grounds that the policy was a violation of his basic First Amendment rights,including rights to freedom of speech.[1][2]
Facts of case
[edit]The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections maintains a Long Term Segregation Unit (LTSU) to segregate a small number of its most violent and unmanageable inmates. Level 2, the most restricted level in LTSU, does not allow inmates access to normally available written nonreligious material or photographs. Inmates begin at Level 2, which has the most severe restrictions, but may graduate to the less restrictive level 1 where such material is allowed, based on maintenance of good behavior and deprivation for rehabilitation. Banks, a Level II inmate, filed suit in Federal Court, alleging that this policy violated his First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech.[3]
Course
[edit]During discovery, prison officials introduced policy and standards manuals and other documents into the record, outlining the procedures used in the LTSU. Along with the documents, Secretary, Beard filed a motion for a summary judgment in the Federal District Court based on the undisputed facts including those in the deposition, while Banks filed a separate motion for a summary judgment.
The District Court granted the Beard's motion, based on these fact, and denied the motion of Banks. However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Beard’s summary judgment, holding that the prison rules and regulations could not be supported by law.
Issues
[edit]The points at issue in this case are whether the LTSU prison policy violates the First Amendment rights of Level 2 inmates. It is also questions of whether judges should allow prison officials to determine policies that are less related to security than to beliefs about behavioral management techniques and that rely on deprivation to deter misbehavior and the increased privileges in Level 1 to inspire improved behavior.[4]
See also
[edit]Footnotes
[edit]- ^ "Beard v. Banks". Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 2007-10-28.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help) - ^ "Beard v. Banks (docket #: 04-1739) (2006) [Findlaw]". firstamendmentcenter.org. Retrieved 2007-10-28.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help) - ^ "Supreme Court of the United States - Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Banks". Retrieved 2007-10-28.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help) - ^ "Beard v. Banks, 04-1739 - Prisoners' rights". ACLU. Retrieved 2007-10-28.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|month=(help)