{"id":1662,"date":"2019-08-21T10:58:59","date_gmt":"2019-08-21T15:58:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1662"},"modified":"2019-08-27T14:02:52","modified_gmt":"2019-08-27T19:02:52","slug":"pesci-v-budz-11th-cir-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/08\/21\/pesci-v-budz-11th-cir-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Pesci v. Budz (11th Cir. 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Pesci v. Budz, No. 18\u201310642 (11th Cir. 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiff is an individually civilly committed in Florida’s SOCC center. He regularly published a newsletter, Duck Soup<\/i> that detailed the events at the commitment center that was circulated amongst the people detained there. The newsletter became increasingly inflammatory according to the center’s staff, and resulted in the publication ultimately being banned. Thereafter, Plaintiff began a new publication which was more acceptable to center staff, but faced distribution troubles in light of new computer and printing restrictions. Plaintiff brought a \u00a7 1983 civil rights claim alleging First Amendment violations related to the banning of Duck Soup<\/i> as well as restrictions on printing and computer access. The District Court granted summary judgment to Defendants, and Plaintiff sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that state Defendants were within their discretion to ban the publication of Duck Soup<\/i>, and that the page-limitation policy that was enforced against the subsequent publication was clearly related to state Defendants’ interest in conserving resources.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n