The newsletter, Fortune News, is the monthly publication of the Fortune Society, a New York based non-profit organization that professes as primary concern promotion of public awareness of life and conditions in America’s prisons. The defendants banned the newsletter because, according to them, Fortune News and the Society’s speakers did not reflect the truth concerning conditions in state prisons. Defendants furthermore offered no substantive evidence that the newsletter would interfere with or be disruptive of prison discipline, administration or security. Defendants’ sole state opposition to the instant motion is that the plaintiffs have not established that they are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, and that plaintiffs’ motion cannot succeed on its own merits.
The court disagreed, and on the most fundamental of basis: incarceration does not strip a person of his or her rights, especially preferred freedoms like Constitutional rights, alleged violations of which being subject to close judicial scrutiny. The court ruled that only a compelling state interest centering on prison security or a clear and present danger of a breach of prison discipline or some substantial interference with orderly institutional administration can justify curtailment of a prisoner’s Constitutional rights. The court noted that defendants offered none of the above justification for the ban on Fortune News, calling the ban arbitrary. In light of the fact that the same newsletter is allowed in New York City jails, the court noted that not only are plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, but also their Fourteenth Amendment rights of equal protection being trampled thereunder.
The motion for a preliminary injunction was granted. See: Fortune Society v. McGinnis, 319 F. Supp. 901 (D.C. N.Y. 1970) Case No. 70 Civ. 4370
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Fortune Society v. McGinnis
|Cite||319 F. Supp. 901 (D.C. N.Y. 1970) Case No. 70 Civ. 4370|