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.
This particular case had nothing to do with porn. It had to do with enforcing the terms of an earlier legal action related to his access to legal materials. Which should be a clear indicator that this inmate spends lotso time suing people. Nothin' better to do and nothin' but time on his hands.
I, too, can't believe any respectible counsel even took this case. Wanna know how much the judgment was in favor of the prisoner? Twenty-one dollars. No joke.
When we deal with these kinds of suits, the inmates always represent themselves because most attorneys have better things to do with their time. Inmates and prisoners do not have a right to have counsel appointed in civil suits, by the way. This one was different because of the earlier case I mentioned and that fact that the terms of the earlier case were being enforced.
I had a suit by an inmate once who claimed we violated his constitutional rights to practice his religion as a Lakota Indian. And then there was the guy who said we beat him up because he mishandled cheese in the kitchen...