
California Prisons Are Deleting Records of Social Media Censorship - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/california-prison-officials-are-deleting-records-inmate-social-media-censorship
======
fucking_tragedy
FTA

 _First, CDCR said its rules prohibit inmates from accessing Internet-
connected devices or computers. So, if an inmate used a contraband device to
go on Facebook, that means the prison can get that content taken down.

By that logic, if an inmate gets a tattoo with a contraband tattoo needle, the
prison would believe it had the authority to have the tattoo removed. Or, if
an inmate had a letter smuggled out to a newspaper, the prison could ask the
newspaper to delete a story citing the letter. Take the CDCR’s argument to an
even further extreme: if a non-incarcerated person steals a computer, writes a
novel on it, gets the novel published, law enforcement could ask bookstores to
pull it from their shelves.

To reiterate—the CDCR is not claiming that inmates’ speech isn’t First
Amendment-protected activity. But amazingly, CDCR is claiming the right to
censor protected speech because of the manner in which it was transmitted.
While possessing a contraband phone should be a punishable offense, we believe
that must be separate from any speech created with that device.

CDCR’s other claim relates to how an inmate may have a family or friend post
to Facebook on their behalf. CDCR claims that this amounts to illegal computer
hacking, because an inmate is causing computer services to be used without
authorization.

It is unclear from the letter what unauthorized access CDCR is referring to.
CDCR could be saying that by using a third party to access Facebook—which is a
violation of Facebook’s terms of service—the offender is committing a criminal
offense. If that’s CDCR’s argument, it’s plainly wrong: in United States v.
Nosal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that
violating terms of service is not unauthorized access.

It’s even worse if CDCR is arguing that an inmate is breaking prison
regulations or engaging in illegal hacking by having someone access the
Internet on their behalf. Under that scenario, any inmate who asks a family
member to do Internet legal research would be criminally liable._

That's a horrifying precedent, especially if it has no real legal basis. They
decided to censor inmates because they can, no justification.

~~~
curun1r
> They decided to censor inmates because they can

They've already disenfranchised and disarmed prisoners and we've stood by and
allowed it. What makes the 1st amendment any different from the 2nd or the
Constitution's protections of voting?

The horrible precedent was already set and prisons are simply following it to
its logical conclusion. We should have revolted when we stripped millions of
citizens of their right to vote...that was the bigger overstep.

------
NotSammyHagar
Thanks, eff, please keep doing the good work. How about trying to figure out a
way to get surveillance to end, get snowden back in the world :-)

