The warden claimed the newsletter was an "immediate threat to the security of the institution" because its lead article, "Protest at Angola," approved of a work stoppage at Angola which had taken place two months earlier. Furthermore, the prison had failed to notify individual potential recipients of the newsletter of the censorship. The district court upheld the regulation allowing the censorship and the censorship as constitutionally permitted. It also held that individual notification did not justify relief because prison officials had met with the publisher multiple times.
The publisher appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in all aspects. See: Vodicka v. Phelps, 634 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1980).
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
Vodicka v. Phelps
|Cite||634 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1980)|
|Level||Court of Appeals|