Court Allows Tennessee Inmate To Fight For Racist Literature As Part Of His Religion

[cleanhippie]

A convicted murderer has won the right to argue to a federal judge that he should be entitled to receive hate-filled white supremacist material in a Tennessee prison because it’s part of his religion.

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that a lower court should not have dismissed Anthony Hayes’ lawsuit against the state of and its prison system.

--snip--

The 54-year-old inmate is serving a sentence for first-degree murder, aggravated burglary and two counts of felony escape. He is currently being housed in the Morgan County Correctional Complex in Wartburg.

http://racismdaily.com/2011/06/02/court-allows-tennessee-inmate-to-fight-for-racist-literature-as-part-of-his-religion/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hey, its his religion. Who are we to say what is and what is not a valid belief. To do so would be a dismissal of faith.

[Iggo]

1. They allow bibles, don't they?

[ergot]

3. You were more diplomatic.

;-)

[Iggo]

4. I self-edited until that was all that was left...lol. (n/t)

[cleanhippie]

5. I guess so. But what if his beliefs are not christian?

[Iggo]

6. He can only hate if he's xtian?

That hardly seems fair.

[cleanhippie]

7. Oh no, of course not. Anyone can hate.

But xtians are just so damn GOOD at it! :)

[ergot]

2. Well, the Christian bible is far from free of racism and hate...

shrug

[struggle4progress]

8. Anthony Hayes v. State of Tennessee

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Anthony Hayes appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging a First Amendment violation and his claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ... We AFFIRM the dismissal of the First Amendment claim, REVERSE the dismissal of the RLUIPA claim, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Hayes is serving a sentence for first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and two counts of felony escape. He has been an inmate of the Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) since 1975. In April of 2005, while confined at the Brushy Mountain Correctional Complex in Petros, Tennessee, Hayes requested that the prison recognize his membership in the religious group Christian Israel Identity and change his religious preference accordingly on all TDOC forms. Hayes also requested literature by mail from the New Christian Crusade Church of Matairie, Louisiana. After the prison received the literature, Warden Jack Morgan (“Warden”) rejected it pursuant to TDOC Policy 507.02. The Warden determined that the literature contained Security Threat Group (“STG”) information “relating to an activity that pose(d) a potential risk to the security of the facility and safety of inmates and staff” ...

... Hayes’s First Amendment argument seems to be that Defendants discriminatorily applied TDOC Policy 507.02 only to him and not to fellow inmate Harper, without explaining the legitimate penological interests served ... In the instant case, summary judgment was proper because Hayes did not present evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Defendants’ rejection of his requested religious literature was for reasons other than taking reasonable measures to maintain prison security ...

The purpose of the RLUIPA is to “protect institutionalized persons who are unable freely to attend to their religious needs and are therefore dependent on the government's permission and accommodation for exercise of their religion” ... An inmate asserting a claim under the RLUIPA must first produce prima facie evidence demonstrating that his religious exercise was substantially burdened ... Defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not argue that Hayes failed to produce prima facie evidence demonstrating that his religious exercise was substantially burdened ...

For the reasons stated, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Hayes’s First Amendment free-exercise claim, REVERSE the dismissal of his RLUIPA claim, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

http://www.courtlistener.com/ca6/27K8/anthony-hayes-v-state-of-tennessee/

[LuvNewcastle]

9. So put him on a cross and set him on fire.

[damntexdem]

10. Validity of belief is irrelevant -- only two things count:

1) the right to full and free exercise of religion; and
2) the prohibition on illegal actions that hurt others, which cannot be justified by freedom of worship.

The question is not his right to see any type of literature, it is how he uses it. If there is evidence that he has used such literature to incite violence against others, or to justify his own violence against others, then his possession of such literature should be banned.

[cleanhippie]

11. How does one determine just when your second point is applicable?

the prohibition on illegal actions that hurt others, which cannot be justified by freedom of worship.


Often, actions that are NOT illegal do considerable harm to others. To me, indoctrination one's child to believe in the supernatural is doing grave harm, yet that is not only legal, its encouraged.

[struggle4progress]

12. Why not read the actual court opinion, before discussing what you think it says?

[cleanhippie]

13. I'm using some of those "other ways of knowing."

[rug]

14. One of them is reading.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0367n-06.pdf

[struggle4progress]

15. To me that usually means something like "The heart has its reasons the mind cannot know"

which is not a prescription for determining material facts, but rather concerns matters such as our intent when dealing with others

[trotsky]

16. I think you might want to re-read it first.

Perhaps you & rug could read it to each other.

Under the part labeled "Conclusion":

For the reasons stated, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Hayes’s First Amendment free-exercise
claim, REVERSE the dismissal of his RLUIPA claim, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Hayes, in his initial suit, apparently alleged that his first amendment rights were being violated AND that denying him the materials he wanted was a violation of the RLUIPA, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. This ruling AFFIRMS the dismissal of his first amendment claim, but it overturns the lower court's dismissal of his RLIUPA claim. Meaning, they agree that he is entitled to his religious racist materials.

Why not read the actual court opinion, before discussing what you think it says... indeed.

[cleanhippie]

17. Oh, now come on! I was gonna give 'em a little more rope first.

They were nearly finished making a shared noose.

Thanks. Thanks a lot! :sarcasm:

[Leontius]

18. No it just states that the court must rehear

the RLUIPA portion of the complaint, not that he is entitled to anything other than another day in court.

[struggle4progress]

19. In #8 above, I had already posted your excerpt

[trotsky]

21. But you didn't read it. Neither did your buddy. n/t

[rug]

20. It was reversed on procedural, not First Amendment, grounds.

"Hayes’s response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion asserted that a reasonable alternative to Defendants’ rejection of his religious literature in its entirety would have been for Defendants to permit the mail to pass to him either uncensored or redacted. Because Defendants did not respond to this argument and the district court did not address it, summary judgment wa improperly granted. Nor have Defendants explained why they have a compelling interest in prohibiting Hayes from receiving the material, while permitting Harper to receive it and Hayes to secure it through Harper." - 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

"Meaning, they agree that he is entitled to his religious racist materials." - trotsky

It does not mean what you think it means.

[trotsky]

22. The OP stands.

You and s4p were wrong.

[rug]

23. Well, that's persuasive.

But incorrect.

[trotsky]

24. "Court Allows Tennessee Inmate To Fight For Racist Literature As Part Of His Religion"

True or false?

[rug]

25. False. More accurate: "Appellate Courts Remands Case On District Court Error"

I know, boring, but that's the law for you.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

27. False because it contains additional accurate information?

You have strange definitions of words.