FTA First, CDCR said its rules prohibit inmates from accessing Internet-connected devices or computers. So, if an inmate used a contraband device to go on Face

FTA First, CDCR said its rules prohibit inmates from accessing Internet-connected devices or computers. So, if an inmate used a contraband device to go on Facebook, that means the prison can get that content taken down. By that logic, if an inmate gets a tattoo with a contraband tattoo needle, the prison would believe it had the authority to have the tattoo removed. Or, if an inmate had a letter smuggled out to a newspaper, the prison could ask the newspaper to delete a story citing the letter. Take the CDCR’s argument to an even further extreme: if a non-incarcerated person steals a computer, writes a novel on it, gets the novel published, law enforcement could ask bookstores to pull it from their shelves. To reiterate—the CDCR is not claiming that inmates’ speech isn’t First Amendment-protected activity. But amazingly, CDCR is claiming the right to censor protected speech because of the manner in which it was transmitted. While possessing a contraband phone should be a punishable offense, we believe that must be separate from any speech created with that device. CDCR’s other claim relates to how an inmate may have a family or friend post to Facebook on their behalf. CDCR claims that this amounts to illegal computer hacking, because an inmate is causing computer services to be used without authorization. It is unclear from the letter what unauthorized access CDCR is referring to. CDCR could be saying that by using a third party to access Facebook—which is a violation of Facebook’s terms of service—the offender is committing a criminal offense. If that’s CDCR’s argument, it’s plainly wrong: in United States v. Nosal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that violating terms of service is not unauthorized access. It’s even worse if CDCR is arguing that an inmate is breaking prison regulations or engaging in illegal hacking by having someone access the Internet on their behalf. Under that scenario, any inmate who asks a family member to do Internet legal research would be criminally liable. That's a horrifying precedent, especially if it has no real legal basis. They decided to censor inmates because they can, no justification.