Posts Tagged ‘prison mail’
Judge rules against Ore. jail’s mail practices
For two years, the Columbia County Jail north of Portland restricted inmates’ personal mail to the sending and receiving of postcards.
Court: Isolated mail interference doesn’t violate inmates’ rights
Ruling in Pennsylvania prisoner’s case, 3rd Circuit says inmates must show a pattern of interference with the mail in order to prove a First Amendment violation.
Conn. prison can censor Hells Angels mail
Federal judge rejects Daniel Klimas’ free-speech claim that corrections officials’ actions constituted an ‘exaggerated response’ to security concerns.
Calif. appeals court shows unusual solicitude for prisoner rights
Inmate’s letter to newspaper draws suspicion of gang activity, but court finds no such evidence in ruling for the inmate.
Federal judge cancels Ore. jail’s postcard-only policy
Court issues preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of rules, saying limits likely violate the First Amendment.
S.C. county to pay almost $600K to settle jail-censorship suit
Prison Legal News editors contend that this is the largest-ever settlement for such a case.
Another federal court rejects inmate challenge to pen-pal limits
Decision in Missouri follows a recent trend in the federal courts upholding such policies in other states’ prisons.
Deference to prison officials controls pen-pal ruling
11th Circuit panel follows Supreme Court standard that says prisons can restrict inmate expression if doing so is reasonably related to legitimate reasons, such as safety.
Prison should have let inmate send manuscript, judge rules
Federal decision says outgoing prisoner mail enjoys more First Amendment protection than incoming.
7th Circuit gives Wis. prisons victory on inmate mail
Panel rules officials can refuse delivery of newsletters criticizing the prison system because they believed certain articles posed a threat.



















Speech Commentary | David L. Hudson Jr.
5th Circuit upholds prison book censorship in Texas
Prison policies to promote inmate safety and rehabilitation are legitimate, but censoring books irrationally and inconsistently isn’t.