Prisoners have restricted free speech rights. Amongst different issues, their outgoing written communications are sometimes reviewed earlier than sending. The Hill Correctional Center in Illinois bans prisoners from sending “coded” messages that the reviewers can’t perceive. (I think about different prisons have this coverage too, however they aren’t defendants on this case).
Whereas I can perceive the purpose of a coverage in opposition to coded messages, the jail has interpreted the coverage to ban all “symbols,” i.e., something apart from letters, numbers, and punctuation. That signifies that emojis are categorically not permitted in emails despatched by prisoners (although I’m wondering if emoticons could be?).
On this case, two of the plaintiff’s emails had been stopped as a result of they contained coronary heart emojis. The courtroom says this interpretation of the coverage could violate the prisoner’s First Modification rights. In consequence, the prisoner’s grievance survived an preliminary deserves evaluation and might proceed.
After all, a coronary heart emoji may represent a coded message–each sort of communication, together with phrases, is able to coded meanings. On the identical time, many makes use of of the guts emoji could be utterly comprehensible in context by any affordable reviewer. In these conditions, a categorical ban of the guts emoji could be overreaching. #FreeTheEmojis. ❤
Case quotation: Taliani v. Dortch, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64067 (C.D. Unwell. April 12, 2023)