Facts
In the mentioned case brief, the Supreme Court created a specific protective standard of the free speech rights of inmates according to the First Amendment. The case was founded when Martinez and other inmates decided to bring a suit against the Department of Corrections of California since it violated certain constitutional guaranteed by establishing such regulations. The court decided that the rules of the prison were too vague and inappropriate. The discussed case brief proved that free speech can be prohibited only to protect public and governmental interests, which was not true for the situation. In addition, the case concluded that prisoners have all the constitutional rights.
Issue
Should prison officials be allowed to have access to prisoner mail and monitor if the letters contain any inappropriate information?
Holding
The court decided that prison administration could censor the mail of inmates if it affected governmental or public interests and regulations. Moreover, it was concluded that “the limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of a specific interest involved” (Hudson, n.d., para. 4). Finally, it was noted that the Department of Corrections failed to ensure safety for the prisoners when they were denied access to specific information.
Rationale
The reason behind the decision of the court is based on the rules of the First Amendment and the general rights and freedoms of individuals. The First Amendment states that freedom of speech should not be prohibited at any levels of the society. Therefore, it is wrong to access personal information and prevent inmates from speaking up about the problem. It is the general right of every citizen to have privacy and express concerns about issues.
Reference
Hudson, D. L. (n.d.). Procunier v. Martinez (1974). The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Web.