The Boston Globe has its facts all wrong.
He originally sued to get access to legal materials in a law library, not acess to porn. He reached a written agreement in the original suit. The terms of the agreement stated that if he had to take further legal action to enforce the agreement, his counsel would be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
Don't get me wrong - I hate inmate suits and am on the side of defending them on an ongoing basis.
The Boston Globe has given this articel an inflammatory title and mis-stated the facts to get people all bent out of shape.
LSM strikes again.
Actually, I gave it the inflammatory title on the assumption that the facts, as stated in the article, were true. That's what I get for believing something as written in the Globe. Did pornography have anything to do with this suit or has the writer confused the facts entirely?
That said, what I find particularly outrageous is the fact that these "civil rights advocates" get taxpayer funds for their adventures in litigation. Civil rights are just an means to an end; in this case, money, in other cases, social anarchy.