I WOLF Sheep ’ s Clothing : A in Wolf v . Ashcroft and the Constitutionality of Using the MPAA Ratings to Censor Films in Prison

n 2001, prisoners in Pennsylvania challenged a prison policy prohibiting them from watching films rated R, X, or NC-17. The prison policy was designed to implement the Zimmer Amendment,2 which denies funding to any prison that shows R, X, or NC-17 films.3 After the District Court denied the prisoners’ claims in a cursory opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded for a more fact-sensitive analysis. Ostensibly, the eventual disposition of this case may appear rather unimportant. Many may question why much attention should be paid to whether prisoners should have the right to view certain films; however, there are actually several important questions raised by this case and other cases dealing with the Zimmer Amendment. Initially, courts have traditionally held that the MPAA ratings lack any clear standards and that they are legally unenforceable. If a court upholds the provision of the Zimmer Amendment that prohibits funding to prisons showing R, X, or NC-17 films, it will essentially be saying that the MPAA ratings can be used by certain governmental agencies to censor films. This is diametrically opposed to the central purposes of the MPAA ratings: establishing selfregulation and curbing government censorship. Despite federal courts’ gradual recognition of their role in vindicating prisoners’ rights in the 1960s, the courts are increasingly deferring to the government when crafting prison policies. The Zimmer Amendment, and the Pennsylvania prison policy based on it, have presented the federal courts with an opportunity to play a leading role again in vindicating prisoners’ rights.4 Both the Zimmer Amendment and the Pennsylvania policy were apparently passed to punish prisoners, despite there being no factual findings that the laws actually advanced any penological interests. While the I WOLF