Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2018/FL/Prison_Legal_News_v_Florida_DOC_Censorship_amicus_brief_law_professors_2015/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:29:28+00:00

Document:
the preparation or submission of this brief.
Aziz Z. Huq, Preserving Political Speech from Ourselves and Others, 112 COLUM.
Erwin Chemerinsky, The Constitution in Authoritarian Institutions, 32 SUFFOLK U.
jurisprudence which tends toward ever-greater protection for speech.
magazine are being impounded once the Department sends one notification.
the appendix to this brief.
harmful speech, such as violent video games, funeral protests, and crush videos.
those cases involved unique situations, such as supporting terrorist organizations.
worst” and was justified by rehabilitation; neither characteristic is present here.
where some facilities admitted issues while others censored them.
process is required than the bare minimum the district court ordered.
to the other branches of government when it comes to justifying bans on speech.
recognizing that the regulation at issue is not valid in light of the right at stake.
same time, the Constitution’s protections do not end at the prison gates. Id. at 84.
informed by the modern direction of free-speech jurisprudence.
of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) and McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).
See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 365.
“no constitutional value in false statements,” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S.
2545–46 (plurality op.); id. at 2553 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment).
“harm[ed]” the “moral development” of minors. 131 S.Ct. 2729, 2741 (2011).
$10 million for emotional distress. 562 U.S. 443, 448, 450, 459 (2011).
concerned particular speakers or exceptional situations. For instance, Garcetti v.
use.” Id. at 397, 408 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“rigorous regime of confinement.” Id. at 530 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Id. at 526. None of these characteristics are present in the current controversy.
the deference courts give to prison officials under the Turner test.
COLUM. L. REV. SIDEBAR 16, 18–19 (2012).
of deference confirms that the more important the right, the less deference owed.
underscores the significance of legal information in prison. See id. at 530.
corrections officials.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90 (internal quotation marks omitted).
stamps.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 33-501.401(3)(l) (2009) (amended 2010).
this legal publication could be uniquely dangerous in Florida’s prisons. See Holt v.
prisoners.” District Court Order 47. But that is not the test. Speech is unique.
that since a corporation’s PAC can speak, the corporation suffers no real injury).
inmate mail and phone calls.
its full confidence in prison officials, even though they could not justify their ban.
necessity is most evident.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 372.
charged with petty offenses are not constitutionally entitled to a jury trial, Cheff v.
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 154 (1968).
Martinez conducted this delicate balance as it relates to prison regulations.
Legal News to meaningfully protest the prison’s decision.
tell Prison Legal News the reason for the first impoundment.
Constitution in Authoritarian Institutions, 32 SUFFOLK U. L. REV. 441, 459 (1998).
where its necessity is most evident.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 372.
judgment as to the First Amendment and expand its order regarding due process.
by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii) and 11th Cir. R. 32-4.
not those of the institutions with which they are affiliated.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.