Opinion ID: 221238
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Existence of an Alternative Means of Exercising the Restricted Right

Text: The second Turner factor requires us to examine whether an alternative means of exercising the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights remains available to them despite the restriction that has been imposed. The plaintiffs concede that on the face of the matter, their First Amendment rights are not seriously impeded by the pen-pal policy, given that the [IDOC] allows prisoners to communicate with virtually anyone and everyone, provided they are not obtained through a pen-pal site. App. Br. at 23. Though inmates cannot advertise for pen-pals, they can still send and receive nearly unlimited correspondence. The crux of the plaintiffs' argument is that the ample alternative channels of communication that remain available to them are illusory; inmates such as those in the instant case may not be able to find persons in the outside world with whom to communicate without advertising on pen-pal sites. While we are mindful that some inmates do not maintain relationships with family and friends following their incarceration, it cannot be said that alternative means of communication do not exist for such inmates. As deposition testimony in this case revealed, inmates may obtain pen-pals through various groups that visit the prison. They may also cultivate contacts in the outside world through other inmates, their attorneys, and by their own initiative. Inmates are allowed to receive newspapers and magazines; nothing prohibits them from reaching out to those who may be sympathetic to their plight. As such, we cannot conclude that the alternative means of communication available to them are illusory. Finding that viable alternative means of communication remain available to IDOC inmates, we move to the third of the four Turner factors.