Last month the United
States Supreme Court, by unanimous decision, declared that the State of
North Carolina cannot categorically prohibit convicted sex offenders
from using social media websites, such as facebook, Twitter and
countless others. In doing so, the court recognized that these
cyberspace forums are the principal sources for knowing current events,
checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public
square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and
knowledge...they allow a person with an Internet connection to become a
town crier with a voice that resonates further than it would from any
soapbox.
The
full court resoundingly rejected - and even ridiculed - the State's
argument that these convicted sex offenders could use access to the
Internet to victimize more innocent children. But in doing so, the full
courts recognized that limited restrictions that serve the purpose of
prohibiting contact with minors could be constitutional as the state has
a legitimate purpose in protecting the innocent, especially children.
However,
just as the courts has repeatedly recognized in the past, any
limitations the state imposes on "free speech" must be limited only to
the extent necessary to accomplish that objective as the long standing
rule is that the government "may not suppress lawful speech as a means
to suppress unlawful speech" Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S.
234 (2002)
Myself,
I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy towards perverts who prey on
women and children. But then again, I have an equal measure of contempt
towards those who are not merely satisfied with throwing stones at all
convicted prisoners and find perverse pleasure in seeing us suffer.
But
I do now wonder how this recent ruling in Packinghem v North Carolina,
382 U.S. (2017) will impact those incarcerated in prisons across the
country, as most prison systems - especially states like Florida that
are controlled by republicans - do significantly restrict our exercise
of free speech. There's no doubt in my mind that if those who make the
rules had it their way, prisoners would be prohibited from any and all
communication with the outside world. By creating an "iron curtain"
between prisoners and the free world, prison administrators would be
able to run their prisons as they please.
Here
in Florida prisoners are categorically prohibited from any access to
the Internet, although there are rumors that within the near future we
will be able to start sending and receiving emails and photos - but only
because the prison system stands to make millions of dollars by
charging us for each email or photo send o received.
However,
the bigger issue is that increasingly, even the very limited access
prisoners have to print forms of media, such as local newspapers, are no
longer available. Newspapers and magazines now are transitioning to
only digital access and without access to the Internet it is becoming
harder and harder for prisoners to have meaningful access to forms of
material that have long been recognized as protected from prison
censorship.
Like
many other states, under the pretense of protecting the public from
prisoners who might take advantage of people, Florida prohibits all
prisoners from any form of "soliciting" penpals. This rule was adopted
almost 20 years ago when the Internet was still relatively new and
prisoners began placing ads seeking penpals on various forms of social
sites.
Florida
also strictly prohibits prisoners from having Facebook pages set up, or
any other form of social media, for the same reason - that if we were
allowed to do so, some prisoners could use such social networking sites
to scam money (or whatever) from people.
Bottom
line, Florida, and other states, have long been determined to prohibit
prisoners from interacting with the public. For many years now I have
been posting my "blogs" and maintain my website
(www.southerninjustice.net) which I actually do not maintain as these
are actually controlled by a friend who allows me to write what i will.
But
as long as I don't solicit penpals to write to me, or ask anyone for
money, I am allowed to run my mouth as even the prison system recognizes
that they cannot silence prisoners beyond what is a legitimate and
limited prohibition.
But
are these rules now called into question by this unanimous Supreme
Court decision? If a convicted sex offender is constitutionally entitled
to put up a Facebook page so that he or she can interact with others in
what has become modern days forum for social interaction, then why
shouldn't all prisoners not have the same right? As the Supreme Court
recognized in this Packingham case, a categorical rule prohibiting all
access goes too far - and so maybe the prison system has a legitimate
interest in limited restrictions tailored to actual instances of abuse -
for example, the Florida prison system prohibits those convicted of sex
crimes against children from having social visits with children and so a
similar limitation could be adopted that would prohibit sex offenders
from interactions with minor children via Internet access.
Often we hear politicians talk about the objective of rehabilitating
prisoners while modern day prisons are far more focused on punishing,
the inevitable fact is that the overwhelming majority of prisoners will
one day re-enter society, and for that reason promoting social
interaction between prisoners and the real world seems a legitimate
purpose, as allowing such will substantially decrease the rate of
recidivism.
Even
those such as myself who are on death row have a substantial interest
in being allowed to interact with others online, such as by way of
Facebook. One of my favorite quotes from the Supreme Court came in a
prisoners rights case long ago..."prison walls do not form an iron
curtain and that prisoners are constitutionally entitled to exercise
their first amendment rights.
I'm
already now looking forward to the challenges that will undoubtedly
follow in the wake if last months US Supreme Court's decision and
perhaps in the not too distant future I will be able to put up my very
own Facebook page so that I can socially interact with those who "like"
me, and go online to various websites so that I can read articles on
news sites and online magazines.
They
say times are changing and eventually even the prison system is forced
to join the real world. Just a few years ago we were not allowed MP3
players or even color TV. So, there's hope - and it would be really cool
to have my own Facebook page! :)
2 comments:
Why dont you write a blog about Mark asay,did you know him what kind of person was he? check out my facebook page if you want me to put something please let me know...https://www.facebook.com/deathrowprison/
I do not agree giving people on death row facebook pages,you have no need for a facebook page,you gave up that right,undoubtedly if you were allowed a fb page you will have alot of followers which is wrong,so we will always object giving deathrow prisoners the right to facebook
Post a Comment