Rehabilitation is certainly in society's interests--I don't imagine there's any argument to be made against it. However, the 1st amendment to the US Constituti

Rehabilitation is certainly in society's interests--I don't imagine there's any argument to be made against it. However, the 1st amendment to the US Constitution puts strong limitations on the ability of the government to prevent or censor expression. How can the worthy goal of improving convicts' rehabilitation--albeit via suppressing news and opinion--possibly square with free speech?