I was looking through the New York Times online and came across this story about a lawsuit concerning whether or not an inmate has the right to news media in prison. Here's the link
http://www.nytimes.com/...
It's an interesting debate...one has the right to freely disseminate media, but is the right to view it a universal guarantee? I'm not entirely sure, but I believe in this case the prisoners have a point. The state lets them have paperback books and religious materials, yet a newspaper is deemed a "security risk." Seems far fetched to me. The other, and in my mind more disturbing, justification has to do with behavior modification. More about this and it's implications on the flip.
Prison officials argued that denying an inmate access to a newspaper served as important behavior modification. Justice Souter pointed out that by this logic, depriving a prisoner of legal materials seemed fair as well. The state's contention that ample access to a lawyer is enough, and legal materials are not a prisoner's right, is shaky at best. A law library in a prison can be one of the few good resources an inmate has in the system. Many people in prisons may have poor counsel, or no counsel. Court appointed attorneys are not always looking as deep as they could be, given that they are overworked, often inexperienced, and underpaid. There have been cases where it has been the prisoner, not his lawyer, who has found his best legal remedy, such as in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. Making the assumption that access to a lawyer alone guarantees full legal recourse is dangerous. Prisoner's rights advocates everywhere should watch this case closely, as its implications could go beyond access to the daily paper.