Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979)). Finally, “when a state correctional institution is involved, the deference of a federal court is even more appropriate.” In re Long Term, 174 F.3d at 469. B. Application of the Turner Analysis. (1) Legitimate Penological Interest and Reasonable Relationship. (i) Legitimacy of the Underlying Policy. The policy undergirding the regulation must be legitimate, and, where First Amendment concerns' are implicated, content-neutral. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 414, 109 S.Ct. 1874. The defendants assert that DOC Policy Objective 503.00 was promulgated to further the DOC’s interest in preserving security and furthering inmate rehabilitation. The legitimacy of these interests is plain. See id., 490 U.S. at 415, 109 S.Ct. 1874 (<HOLDING>); O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342,
recognizing that prison regulations designed to provide security are not only legitimate but are central to all other correctional goals recognizing that agency regulations must provide fair notice before penalties are imposed holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined holding that prison regulations impinging on prisoners constitutional rights are only valid where reasonably related to legitimate penological interests holding that icc regulations are not designed to excuse a party from liability he might otherwise have