Maine’s
Inmate Journalism Ban Killed
The
proposed prison regulation prohibiting inmate journalism disappeared from the
latest update. It would not have
withstood that scrutiny anyway. There is federal precedent, established in
1974, that upholds inmates’ free speech to give interviews. Writing published newspaper columns or
blogging, as I’ve tried to do (achieving double digit readership J
), could not have been distinguished as speech different from an
interview. The whole endeavor was more
effort to insulate inmates, continue oppression, sabotage rehabilitation and
hide the corrupt practices of our prison system.
The
vacuous claim in ‘74’ for censorship was, that an interviewed inmate achieves
‘big wheel status” and thereby threatens operation. I’ll skip the prevailing
counter-argument re: inmates’ free speech rights and state that prison status
comes exclusively from violence—real or perceived. Our government, as the
exclusive arbiter of legal coercion, knows this. They are the ultimate “big
wheel” extortionists. How much coerced behavior have you carried out in your
life? More than voluntary behavior?
The
whole play was naked reversal bullshit…”Oh no, any first person exposure of
prison life will unbalance the fragile slave trade, by way of an imbalance of
slave social status.” I have 100 examples of these feigned ignorance,
bureaucratic, deliberately deceptive, and pusillanimous, cheap shot power
plays. [Read any issue of Prison Legal News for 50 examples.] Even as a
life-long doormat I cannot take any more. Excessive tolerance excessively
exceeded.
Latest
personal example: I have had to file
suit against the Colorado Dept. of Corrections just simply to “apply” for
interstate corrections compact (transfer to Maine). No one is denied
application to a statutory (i.e. law that DOC has to at least pretend to honor)
right; except me.
Authorities
conceptually inserted their own additional wording into the statute for the
sake of misinterpretation in order to deny my even applying. It is not up to
that particular authority to interpret the law/statute. Their denial read like
a bribe solicitation.
I’ll
write more about the 100 feigned ignorance, bureaucratic, deliberately
deceptive and pusillanimous, cheap shot power plays, later.
Case
citation: Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 43 (1974)
No comments:
Post a Comment