Link to the story:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040114/w011408.html



Question for debate: Do you think these kinds of writings should be allowed to leave prison walls and be protected under the first amendment?

What are your personal feelings on this?

There is a law saying that a convict cannot benefit financially from their crimes.

That is, he could not write a book and get money from it. In this case, it is implied that the story is available for free, so wouldn't violate that law.

I am divided on the First Amendment aspect here. Had someone interviewed the murderer and published it, it likely would not raise this issue. I can't see how allowing the murderer to do it is much different.

Although the story is certainly distasteful, it may also be informative (to the prosecution at least) as well as therapeutic.

Nobody is forced to read what he wrote, so I don't see the problem there, really.

If a right is inalienable, then it is inalienable by anyone, for anyone, under any circumstances. Start limiting this man's freedom of speech, however nasueating its content might be, and the right to free speech is no longer universal.

If you can live with that, fine. Most other civilised countries function reasonably well without universal, inalienable freedom of speech. You'd have to tear up your constitution, though. Some might say that would have some advantages.

This one really walks the tightrope when it comes to the first amendment. I would almos argue that felons lose their first amendment rights upon being convicted and that they should not be allowed to post items on the internet. At the same time, I'm not sure that the courts would agree with such a line of reasoning. Perhaps a little persepective is needed--people walk around with Charles Manson shirts on, how is that any different?

Forget 1st Amendment rights. I would imagine if you can prove that he is directly attempt to harass this woman or any others you can nail him for that.
Yeah I know he is on Death Row (doesn't anyone know to just send the right people a carton of cigarettes)
As for the guy who is placing the stuff online use some SHAME techniques.
Where does he work. Allow his co workers to know about his hobbies.
How about the people in his neighborhood.
Local newspaper.
his service provider is legally able to suspend his subscription.
You could try to connect his actions with hate crimes and try that.
Just make his life miserable.

I don't think these kinds of writings should be available to the public. I do support First Amendment rights for prisoners (innocent people could be in prison) but I don't support such rights when they discuss violent crimes they did.

I'm with Christopher on this one: if someone were to contact his web hosting company, they'll probably take the site down for violating their rules that web sites aren't allowed to be used to harrass anyone.

Otherwise, it's a 1st Amendment issue all the way and there's really nothing much you can do to someone on death row. If you take his rights away, he can still send mail to someone on the outside to post, so that's not really going to be effective.

The most important thing about the First Amendment is that it protects the rights of the most loathsome individuals in our society. If, after the material is published, it can be shown to cause actual harm (for example, violating the privacy of a non-public figure, publishing libelous statements, and so on) than the appropriate legal action can be taken. Until then, the only thing one can do (as one would do with the ravings of any fanatic) is to condemn the writings in the strongest possible terms.

Actually- breaking the law and the rights of others is in fact a reason to lose your rights as well- for instance, the death penalty, the right to life and the pursuit of happiness, also, felons can't own guns, so the right to bear arms. Felons have no right to free speech, period. We probably need to have a constitutional amendment as well to re-define cruel and unusual punishment.

It's too bad that the prison system can't or doesn't insert some kind of caveat
to preface the remarks of these brutes.

Deliberately taunting or hurting the victims or families of victims and claiming the behavior as a right to free speech is unconscionable. I agree with CruisingRam--there is no reason that a convict should be able to inflict further harm on a victim or victim's family after being found guilty and incarcerated for the offense.

I’m in agreement with CruisingRam.

I’ve always looked at our rights as a balance, a balance between rights and responsibilities. If you can’t handle the responsibilities of your rights than it’s only fair that some of your rights should be forfeited.

As CrusingRam pointed out, convicted felons are not allowed to own a gun and if I’m not mistaken I believe they loose their right to vote. I see no issue with this monster having restrictions put on his rights to free speech as applied to the crime he committed (whether for profit or not).

Everyone may have the inalienable right to free speech. But people don't have an inalienable right to the internet (at least not in the constitution). He can yell from the top of his lungs from his cell, but as for sitting in the prison library posting stuff on the internet - those privledges should be monitored and revoked if necessary.

As loathsome as the case in question may be, I have to agree with Amy Fettig, the ACLU's National Prison Project representative quoted in the article. As she said, "I would understand victims being upset..." but, "just saying nasty things or having bad opinions is not a crime."

Regarding harassment of victims' families, the article stated that material is usually released by a third party in contact with death-row inmates and other prisoners. I didn't read anything regarding the ability of prisoners to post this material to the internet, nor did I read anything in which the material was forced upon the families of victims.

If an intermediary were to e-mail the family of a victim or post material on a website owned or operated by the family, then I could see the argument for harassment. Unless it is against the rules of a service provider to post graphic material related to murder and death, I don't know that the families of victims would have a case in trying to force the removal of such content from the website of an intermediary.

For me it boils down to the message in a famous phrase:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --VOLTAIRE

The freedom of speech being exercised by the prisoner in question seems to be one of contact with individuals. It seems to typically be these individuals who then use their freedom of speech to post the content on the internet. I do not believe incarceration should restrict the rights of prisoners to have contact with individuals of the outside world and certainly do not believe the freedom of speech of outside individuals should be restricted for the potential benefit of victims' families. Such restriction would open too many doors to further restrictions of first amendment rights of both prisoners and free citizens.

I'm a strong supporter of the 1st Amendment. That being said, however, I think anyone who commits a felony has abandoned certain writes (obviously since they are imprisioned). I think this posting the details of their crimes should be part of the rights they have abandoned.

It's not a crime, but if I were a judge, I would issue an injuction prohibiting them from doing it.

Justice in equity.

Why can't the family sue the pants off the prison?

It is Constitutionally protected - no matter how vile it is. If it's not harming anyone, it's not criminal.

But if it causes victims more pain and suffering, that seems like a slam-dunk civil case to me. The prison is negligent in allowing one of it's inmates to systematically torment his victims. An isolated instance would be a weak case. Facilitating the continued tormenting seems negligent. The prisoner can't do this without being supplied through the prison system.

I wish to restate my point here a little clearer- there is great precedent in our society, or any society for that matter, of a removal of inalienable rights when a gross action against that society is commited- for instance, the death penalty has been upheld constitutionally, which right trumps even free speech, you can't very well exercise your freedom of speech after your dead can you?

Prisons have been allowed to restrict all kinds of free speech by prisoners, with the exception of clergy and legal counsell, even not allowing family visits or phone calls. And until the freedom of religion act (probably wrong name, but felons love the religious right on this one LOL) then the lawsuits started on this subject by prisoners asking for thier god given right to conjuical (sp) visits and marijuana for "religious" purposes.

So, long story short, it is absolutely okay for prisons and the penal system to take away your right to breath, much less to use it to speak!

This is not 'just saying nasty things'. The individual in question is graphically describing his actions and 'even taunts Mary Kate Gach by name'. This is clearly a case where the freedom of speech should be stripped. It's harassment and should not be allowed.

Also, from the same article :

The guy is graphically describing his crimes, and at the same time appealing his conviction?

At the very least, I hope his writings are used against his appeal and for enforcing the notion he should be put to death. He has no remorse and continues to torment the family he has already destroyed.