I have some experience with cases of excessive force and I am fully aware of the level of discretion that the court affords to the professional judgement of corrections officers (admittedly restricted to NYCRR). I certainly am not under the impression that the metal bars delineate the good people from the bad people.
My "TeeVee" time is long over and I have done a little research into how how reading a book can land one in solitary. I have not been able to find anything concrete. Most of the things that I have found are consistent with my experience with the NYCRR and everything that I have found is consistent with the Furnace case[1] from California (the most notable and recent case). From everything that I have read I have not been able to find any instances of solitary confinement solely due to reading a book. And certainly no instances of solitary confinement for reading a mass market book that is currently #19 in its category on amazon that the prisoner received via mail and therefore screened (where assessment is based on the individual receiving the book).
Could you point me to some source material?
Side Note: Why so passive aggressive with me or the parent comment?
I'd suggest your research has little to do with reality, and more to do with the Court room:
“Extreme isolation is one of the most extreme forms of punishment one human can force on another, and in New York State it is often a disciplinary tool of first resort,” said NYCLU Legal Fellow Scarlet Kim, co-author of the report. “People spend weeks, months and even years cut off from human interaction and rehabilitative services for non-violent, minor misbehavior. The process for determining who is sent to extreme isolation is arbitrary – there is virtually no guidance or limitations on who can be sent to extreme isolation, for what reasons, or for how long.”
The practice is theoretically intended to separate violent and dangerous inmates from the rest of the prison population. The New York Civil Liberties Union, however, uncovered that the majority of those in solitary confinement were given the punishment for nonviolent, low-level offenses. Nearly 90 percent of the men placed in solitary confinement between 2007 and 2011 were there for breaking one of the minor prison rules, such as having unauthorized books, disobeying an order or growing their mustaches too long (“an inmate shall not grow a beard or mustache over one inch in length”). Other documented infractions that led to solitary confinement included one man who had gambling chips in his cell and another who received 45 days for tattooing himself.
Took me about 3 minutes. Given that the ACLU report was indeed about New York (NYCRR) and you were "unable to find any examples of it", I suspect you're a tainted or biased source.
Given the "down votes" (a Reddit term, I think?) on my response that contained decent sources, I'll disengage from this. I wish weev well, but I suspect if he continues he'll be broken, hard.
Yeah, it's entirely likely the COs won't let it through (for "violence/war"), although they're more likely to let it through because it's somewhat patriotic/pro-US.
OTOH, I'm confident weev will find a way to troll with any means provided.
I also sent him a Holy Qur'an (with English translation/explanations), which I am sure will result in substantial lulz. (although if I were unjustly locked in prison, the Qur'an would probably be on my reading list anyway...)
My "TeeVee" time is long over and I have done a little research into how how reading a book can land one in solitary. I have not been able to find anything concrete. Most of the things that I have found are consistent with my experience with the NYCRR and everything that I have found is consistent with the Furnace case[1] from California (the most notable and recent case). From everything that I have read I have not been able to find any instances of solitary confinement solely due to reading a book. And certainly no instances of solitary confinement for reading a mass market book that is currently #19 in its category on amazon that the prisoner received via mail and therefore screened (where assessment is based on the individual receiving the book).
Could you point me to some source material?
Side Note: Why so passive aggressive with me or the parent comment?
[1] In re Furnace (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 649