Prisoner fails to get “right” to see porn in jail: US

Jeffrey Sperry, a prisoner in Kansas, has failed in an attempt to be able to get porn in jail. Sperry sought to rely on his constitutional rights, including the right to free speech. Not surprisingly, the prison administration opposed the court case.

In the case, called Sperry v Werholtz, the court had no difficulty in hosing out the claim. The Kansas government’s position was simple: having access to porn in jail is a security risk:

Sexually explicit materials are a general impediment to the preservation of
security at [Kansas prison] facilities. They can reasonably be expected to lead to the open performance of lewd acts, which disrupts overall security and order. The possession of sexually explicit materials can openly identify an inmate as homosexual and create an immediate security concern, as such inmates are often targeted for exploitation or violent attack. Sexually explicit materials disrupt and interfere with the treatment and management of sex offenders. The blanket ban prevents sex offenders from having access to such materials directly or by illicit dealing and trading of sexually explicit materials with non-sex offenders. The materials may also be used to sexually harass staff members. There was a potential for staff to file sexual harassment complaints due to exposure to the materials in the workplace environment. Prior to the amendments to [ban the porn, Kansas prisons] had received complaints from prison staff about being required to view these materials while performing their duties. Inmates had also made comments referencing comparisons between prison staff and individuals in the publications or other materials.