ACLU Sues SC Jail over Bible Policy

If it has paper, you got a Bible shiv.

 

It's shitty all right, not that they need to have it proven to them that it's unconstitutional (probaby unconstitutional... I hope so, in any case), but because they already know it is but they're standing firm until they're forced to change. They know already that if you don't spend the money suing, they can go on as planned. What's silly is that decent people/organizations have to spend money suing to get them to either stop allowing Bibles (won't happen) or allow other reading materials (will probably take a while).

I wonder if the publisher is in South Carolina? I wouldn't trust a Bible bound in that state.

 

As someone who just finished reading the book of Genesis illustrated by R. Crumb, I'd like to weigh in with a "no shit."

Damn great rendition by Crumb by the way, but it's probably more important that his version be read in churches than in jails.

 

The publisher of the Lolcat Bible needs to directly send them some soft cover bibles.

 

is this regulation really unconstitutional?

the inmates don't have to order the bibles. the rule is that they cannot have anything to read except bibles.

so they don't get anything to read.

simple enough.

also, i don't understand the free speech question. are they being told they can't say anything except quote the bible? and freedom of religion? are the inmates not allowed to practice their religion?

i can definitely see how not being able to read the scripture of one's religion would be a hindrance, but it would not stop one from practicing it.

perhaps you could argue that not being able to read the scripture would hinder a recent convert in that he would not be able to learn everything his religion dictated, but it would be disingenuous to cite that if the inmate had been a Hindu all his adult life.

do many/most Hindus read their scriptures?

 

You're approaching InTheNet levels of self-parody.

 

if the court finds in favor of the inmates, then we can read what the jurists say about the substance of the suit, but at this point, it's simply a plea on the part of the inmates for judicial redress.

are you so sure that the court will find for the inmates?

and if the court does not, what does that mean?

could it mean that the regulation isn't unconstitutional?

edit:

i just "thumbed" through about a dozen First Amendment cases ( SCOTUS ) and i only found one that touches on the right to access to reading material, and that was US v. A.L.A. where libraries were required to use filtering software to prevent internet access to pornographic material. the issue had to do with receipt of federal funding to make internet access more readily available.

it did not seem to me to have any parallel to not allowing jail inmates access to reading material of their choosing.

 

Actually, he has a point.

Does the first amendment guarantee access to reading materials? Particularly for inmates.

You have to throw out the word Bible, becuase I think it is coloring several poster's view of the topic. Replace Bible with Sports Illustrated. Is it still an issue? I believe from a prison reform stance it does. But, not necessarily from a freedom of speech and religion, although it may. The devil will be in the details.

In a sense, I am not even sure that this thread belongs in this forum.

Now would we all like prisoners to have access to reading material... yes.

But, that doesn't change what a rule in a prison says about the constitutionality of freedom to read whatever you want in prison.

It is very conceiveable that the court will rule that the prisoners can't have any reading material.

I hope not.

 

Yes, it is an issue, I agree, but is it a religious issue? I don't think so?

But its a jail. They are in transition and only there for a short time. Its not a prison. So the question to really understand what is going on here, is what is the normal operating procedure for other jails and short term detention centers when it comes to reading material?

Also, why does this rule exist? Because the warden is a Christian, or as I would wager to guess, that there was no reading material allowed at all for many years, and then some Christians campaigned to get Bibles allowed (not all that surprising in a state that for most of the last 100 years was probably 98% Christian, or from a Christian background) at least.

I went back and re-read the article because something was making sense, and then I realized that this is about a jail, not a prison. I think that colors the issue some bit, most of the inmates are not there for very long, and there may be extenuating circumstances for why they limit reading materials.

Now I am all for them having reading materials, I think that is important, but I kind of feel that this story is much to do about nothing, and not the imagined Christian conspiracy that many might want it to be.

 

The complaint is not a religious one, well not in the way you want it to be. Its an organization that wants to send its materials to a jail. They are complaining that they can't but that the jail does allow some reading material. They just want that they get the same chance as well whoever, since whoever doesn't really exist. Its an argument for access, when no one has access, except that people who want to read the Bible can. Its not like Muslim inmates are filing this suit, or atheist ones. Its just an organization that wants to send its newsletter there. But, other Christian groups are equally unable to send their newsletter. Frankly, its only religious in the sense that this will actually open the jail up to probably more religious materials.

You can fairly easily see why this is the policy of the jail. Firstly, its a jail. Its a smaller facility with less amenities, less capacity. It doesn't handle long term stays. It probably doesn't even have the kind of capability that most prisons have. If you read or watch anything about prisons, you know that controlling what is coming into a prison/jail and what is going out is a huge issue. Books, and magazines could and certainly have been used as ways to bring in drugs and other things. The jail doesn't have a library, because it is a jail. I would imagine that most jails don't. So to limit the income of drugs and other issues, the jail has a no reading material policy (and they can have this because most people are not there long enough to really care). This is probably why they only allow Bibles from the publisher, because they know that the publisher isn't going to be co-opted by other criminal influences as easily as say families, friends, prison guards, etc. who could also easily smuggle in contraband. I would imagine that it being a jail also means that the guards and personnel might not have the same training and technological resources that a prison would to monitor inmates and their mail.

So, basically you have a rule that makes sense and one exception to the rule. Frankly, I think most courts are going to uphold a jails ability to protect itself, its guards, and its inmates in a short term facility over the complaints of an outside organization. I would imagine that all this will do is also take the Bible off the very short list of reading materials permissible. In the end, it really won't matter, because it won't limit people from access to anything since most people are just there for a few weeks or so. They can read the newsletter and the Bible when the are released or are transferred to a more permanent facility.

 

Like I said, replace Bible with Sports Illustrated. It doesn't change anything. We still have the same problem.

There is no religious organization behind the Bible only policy. The probably made the exception so they wouldn't be susceptible to lawsuits about religious freedom.

 

After actually doing more reading:

1. Many jails have the same policy, although the Bible isn't even allowed in most cases. Most jails don't have libraries.

2. The organization in question has filed 12 previous lawsuits and won 9 of them. Others were settled out of court. I believe that all have allowed for greater access of reading material to jail inmates, which I think is a good thing.

3. I still don't see how this is a religious issue. Its a question of human rights for sure, and the rules were limiting people's freedom of religion, I mean what good is a Bible if I can't get a good commentary on it? Inmates probably should have full access to certain reading materials, this is more a question of access, since basically all ability to communicate with the outside world was cut off.

 

Here is an interesting take on limiting reading materials in jails, and you can see why jails do it:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/mar/15/pa-jails-are-changing-inmate-mail-policy/

Not saying it is right, but my point is that there is of course more to the story, than just ignorant religious hicks form South Carolina being meany, meanies and wanting to convert everyone to Southern Baptists.

There is more of a discussion here that needs to take place, before you throw someone under the bus.

 

I understand. Never understood why they had to keep the Confederate flag around. Also, the Strom Thurmond thing. I had a good friend who worked for him for a couple of years and she seemed oblivious to why anyone would think poorly of the man.

I think the state is kind of cut off from reality, but my sense is that the banning of reading materials is completely for safety and man power issues. And in any case the rule is still discrimnatory against Christians. I could be an inmate and try to subscribe to Christianity Today, or get a Bible study series, and that would be denied.

 

I don't know where you're originally from, but given that we're talking about South Carolina, you can't just "throw out the word Bible" and substitute something else for it because this scenario almost certainly wouldn't happen with any other book.

 

but that isn't necessarily relevant. the jail believes that restricting what comes in is necessary. apparently they believe that bible publishers are not going to put knives or drugs in the packages.

what is probably going to happen, as has been suggested, is that no reading material will be allowed. the jail will be forced to specify that bibles are excluded ( cannot be allowed as the only choice ) as well, so the issue will be negated.

 

This isn't even an interesting legal question.