State officials believe that having a bunch of porn lying around in prisoners' cells all the time doesn't make for a very hospitable work environment for women who work in Connecticut's penitentiaries; indeed, the Associated Press reports that some female guards have complained about being sexually harassed by porn-wielding inmates. Also, porn doesn't really help rehabilitate sex offenders, officials say. But the pro-porn protester-prisoners assert that the ban violates their First Amendment rights. (It might also violate their Eighth Amendment rights, if they happen to be Chronic Masturbation Syndrome sufferers.) They're willing to compromise: If they can't have magazines, they'll accept "cable programming that offers and displays nudity, also sexual activity"—otherwise known as Pornographic Films.
Do you think it's unfair to make Connecticut prisoners do their time without access to "pictorial depictions of sexual activity or nudity?" Or do you think these guys are just being whiny and spoiled? At least they don't have to remain in isolation for 22 hours a day or endure being frozen by air conditioners running at full-blast, like the hunger-striking prisoners in California's Pelican Bay prison do. Maybe that's an unfair comparison to make, but consider that the ban "doesn't include material that could be considered literary, educational, artistic or scientific." So it's not like they're being kept from reading. These guys can still subscribe to National Geographic, which sometimes has naked people in it. And art magazines. And Reader's Digest, which doesn't have nudity but a lot of great jokes.
