Ramblings On News

 

Connecticut's Ban on Porn in Jail

      

    In the legal world, sometimes articles I read just baffle me, like this one about a lawsuit in connection with Connecticut's ban on porn in jails (https://www.courthousenews.com/connecticut-defends-prison-porn-ban-as-boon-to-female-staff/) 

    First of all, I want to make it clear I value the legal system and what it stands for. I think when used appropriately, the legal system is a wonderful thing.  That said, I think some lawsuits are absolutely ridiculous and a waste of court resources.

    For example, porn in jails.......how on earth did this even become a possible discussion?  Let's say you're in jail.  Although there are some exceptions to the rule, most individuals are incarcerated because they did something wrong, and therefore were placed in a prison where they presumably have less rights.  Sure, you're supposed to be learning and rehabilitating. Personally, I think entertainment in any way shape or form is a privilege and ultimately, should be limited because isn't the entire point to make sure people don't want to go back? You can't get your Playboy subscription, so you file a lawsuit. Seriously? It's something to look forward to when you are out of jail!

    So I read this article and I'm first thinking, Connecticut made instituted a ban in 2012 saying no porn, no Playboy, etc.  I'm fairly certain an individuals right to Playboy is not a guaranteed liberty we have.  

     I found myself thinking like the parent I am, rather than a paralegal.  

            ~    Those walls aren't yours.  

            ~    You don't get to pick what gets hung on them.  

            ~    You are an inmate residing in and in the custody of the State. 

            ~    If a rental property can tell you not to hang pictures on the walls with nails, and a parent can tell a child not to hang inappropriate pictures, the State should be able to say no nude pictures if they so choose. 

    Then I'm thinking, there's far too much reference to the need to make sure female employees are not unfairly subjected to pornography.  I'm not sure why there needs to be such a focus on female employees in this lawsuit.  As a general rule of thumb, I've never encountered a work place where pornography or suggestive images are allowed, so whether it should or shouldn't be available to inmates, and hung on their cell walls, in my opinion seems simple.  It shouldn't have anything to do with the gender of some of the employees.

   Now I think about the workplace.  If I came to work and my co-worker had porn or nude pictures on their wall or in their cubicle, I don't think I'd be comfortable.  And let's face it, at this point it's not about who wants to see what, I can't imagine many who wouldn't either be uncomfortable and/or distracted.

    A work environment needs to be comfortable for everyone there.  So it seems realistic to expect that if there are things that are seriously questionable as to if their presence would make the workplace uncomfortable for the majority of the employees, that it should come down.  I'd like to think that porn would be a no brainer. 

    I'm not really sure what is more ridiculous about this lawsuit - that prisoners were able to combine their efforts and hire attorneys to defend their rights to read Playboy, post nude pics, or the like, or that the State needs to waste resources, financial and otherwise, to defend why a rule they made to protect the rights of their employees, which may not make the prisoners happy, is the rule.  

    Imagine if our children could do this when we set rules! 🤣

Have any comments or suggestions? Topics you'd like to see covered?

A funny day in the life of a paralegal or an article you'd like to share?

Use the suggestion form on the left side of this webpage!