HARTFORD, Conn. [FONT=Times New Roman]– [/FONT]As plaintiffs in lawsuits that invoke the First Amendment go, Dwight Pink Jr. is not a particularly sympathetic figure.
Convicted in 2000 for the 1998 killing of a man who was shot in the head five times and stabbed in the heart seven times with a sword, it’s safe to say that making sure Pink’s in-prison art education is well-rounded is not on anybody’s list of priorities.
That said, does it really make sense that the state is empowered to deny Pink access to an art book called Altlas of Foreshortening: The Human Figure in Deep Perspective?
According to the Associated Press, the Connecticut Department of Corrections administrative ban on porn in prisons contains an exemption for “materials which, taken as a whole, are literary, artistic, educational or scientific in nature.” Given the book in question bills itself as a “unique visual encyclopedia for artists and illustrators,” doesn’t it follow that it should not be subject to the Connecticut DOC’s ban?
That assumption isn’t as safe as you might think, according to First Amendment specialist and noted adult industry attorney Marc Randazza.
“A legitimate penological reason is enough to ban it,” Randazza told YNOT, noting that all the government needs to show is that the ban is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose under the “rational basis” standard of review that would be applied in this case.
As Randazza previously observed on his blog, under the rational basis standard, “prisons can basically do what they please to inmates” when it comes to denying them access to expressive materials. Under the applicable test, which originated with the case Thornburgh v. Abbot, the court applies a three-prong analysis.
The first prong of the test asks “whether the governmental objective underlying the regulations at issue is legitimate and neutral, and whether the regulations are rationally related to that objective.” Next, the court considers “whether there are alternative means of exercising the rights that remain open to prison inmates at de minimis cost to penological interests.” Finally, the court looks at “the impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on others in the prison” – with the “others in the prison” being the other inmates and employees of the prison, including correctional officers.
Since the court has adopted the reasoning that allowing inmates access to pornography could encourage sexual harassment of prison employees, this manner of ban has been interpreted to be extremely wide. As such, regardless whether the Atlas of Foreshortening is really the sort of work the ban was intended to reach, it’s likely the court will rule the ban does indeed cover it.
As Randazza puts it, “challenges to these policies, however well-deserved and meritorious they are, seldom succeed.”
At the end of the day, most residents of Connecticut probably aren’t troubled by the notion of depriving guys like Pink access to art books, particularly if they believe his primary impetus for accessing said art books is to find inspiration for masturbation. If we’re going to bother with the pretense of rehabilitation, and we’re going to offer education in art as part of that rehabilitation, does it really make sense to limit education to G-rated art? Apparently, at least for the Connecticut Dept. of Corrections, the answer to that question is a resounding “yes.” Let’s hope they feel strongly about that answer, because they may be on the cusp of spending a not-insignificant amount of the state’s money defending it in court.
