Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2018/FL/Prison_Legal_News_v_Florida_DOC_Censorship_amicus_brief_press_2015/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:22:57+00:00

Document:
interest in the outcome of this particular case on appeal.
journalism to the benefit of the industry and the public.
society – without Government in the Sunshine, civic engagement cannot bloom.
process. Authority to file has been provided by its executive director.
where U.S. law applies, regardless of the medium in which their work appears.
Authority to file has been provided by its legal defense director.
Madison Award from the Washington Coalition for Open Government.
represents 112 alternative newsmedia organizations throughout North America.
influential adults. Authority to file has been provided by its executive director.
the Amici for a variety of reasons as well.
case “can save lives.” Id. at 2664 (quoting Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S.
to the protection of the speech rights of the Amici in other contexts as well.
action and an opportunity to oppose it is protected.
government or the reporting of news that leads to criticism of the government.
Conclusions of Law) at 2-3.
rather than being the focus of, the publication.’” Id. at 8-9 ¶¶18-19.
amendment, FDOC then allowed distribution of Prison Legal News to continue.
services whether they saw advertising for them or not.
adjudication that its amended rule violates the First Amendment.
when it is determined that the publication might facilitate criminal activity.
Conducting a business or profession while incarcerated.
the existing rule is squarely at issue.
preparing or submitting the brief.
rights if it is not facially invalidated.
limits were delineated in Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
guidelines to prevent its use for censorial purposes.
serves the important purpose of preventing the chilling of future speech.
actions of the FDOC in applying the rule violated the First Amendment.
to ensure that the regulations cannot be used to engage in prohibited censorship.
“vagueness is principally responsible for the Rule’s disparate application,” Doc.
County Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1203 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing CAMP Legal Def.
without saying, that it also is invalid as applied, as the plaintiff contends.
regulation even when the parties ask only for a ruling as applied. E.g., David A.
(“petitioners' as-applied claims ‘are better read as facial objections to Ohio's law.’ .
overly broad statute to chill speech. F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S.
point for analysis, therefore, is those prior decisions.
to prison regulations restricting speech rights – one set forth in Procunier v.
prisoner marriages), and a lower standard articulated in Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S.
Whether alternative means of exercising the right are available.
today that the Pell standard as discussed in Turner applies in this case.
policies that restrict the dissemination of news and information to prisoners.
purpose. Id. at 414 (quoting petitioners’ petition for certiorari).
and increased the efficiency of inmate cell searches. In Prison Legal News v.
correctional officer efficiency. In Prison Legal News v. Columbia County, No.
v. Columbia County, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Or. 2013).
whether the rule violated the Turner standards. Two justices concluded that it did.
Turner factors due to their dissatisfaction with Turner as the appropriate standard.
apparent that they do not satisfy any, let alone all four of the Turner standards.
that prisoners may find useful.
majority could address whether the rule satisfied the Turner standards.
effective prohibition of distribution of Prison Legal News entirely.
in Virginia for abortion clinics, irrespective of where they might be located.
This principle is of vital importance to the Amici.
geographic areas that prohibit the sale of advertised products and services.
See Samantha Schuyler, Fla.’s Alcohol Sale Laws Remain A WidelyVarying Patchwork, http://www.wuft.org/news/2013/08/25/alcohol-sales/.
will continue and these rules will be unaffected.
advertising with respect to those services.
purposes that the courts will be able to detect and stop.
official other than the person who originally disapproved the correspondence.
correspondence”); see also Barrett v. Orman, 373 Fed. Appx. 823, 826 (10th Cir.
2010) (“Martinez's procedural requirements survived Thornburgh); Jacklovich v.
let alone the strict procedural safeguards required by Maritnez.
advertisements. Perry, 664 F.3d at 1368.
distinction adopted by the Eleventh Circuit in Perry for bulk mailings.
advertising for services that the prison system does not allow prisoners to engage.
impose burdens on the state that would warrant the banning of the advertising.
Martinez, 416 U.S. at 401-02.
delineated prison regulation.” Rios v. Lane, 812 F.2d 1032, 1039 (7th Cir. 1987).
other forms of distribution licensing such as newsrack regulations.
restrictions are imposed, that only can be done through clear and specific criteria.
request”); Gold Coast Publ’ns, Inc. v. Corrigan, 42 F.3d 1336, 1349) (11th Cir.
Harrell, 608 F.3d at 1258.
order to allow that power to be exercised.’” Id. (quoting Eaves, 601 F.2d at 823).
focal, non-incidental, prominent, or prevalent.
the plaintiff and reverse those aspects that disfavor the plaintiff.
counsel or parties of record on December 14, 2015.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.