Mumia Abu-Jamal Speaks Out from Jail on New Pennsylvania Law Silencing Prisoners

[bananas]

Mumia Abu-Jamal Speaks Out from Jail on New Pennsylvania Law Silencing Prisoners

democracynow
Published on Oct 21, 2014

Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Corbett is set to sign into law a bill critics say will trample the free speech rights of prisoners.

Last week, lawmakers openly said they passed the legislation as a way to target one of the state's most well-known prisoners: journalist and former Black Panther, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted in 1982 of killing of a Philadelphia police officer, but has long maintained his innocence.

During a late night vote last Tuesday, the Pennsylvania House unanimously approved the "Revictimization Relief Act," which authorizes the censoring of public addresses of prisoners or former offenders if judges agree that allowing them to speak would cause "mental anguish" to the victim.

The measure was introduced after Abu-Jamal delivered a pre-taped commencement address for graduating students at Vermont’s Goddard College earlier this month.

We air Abu-Jamal’s response to the bill and speak to Noelle Hanrahan, founder of Prison Radio, which has been recording and distributing Abu-Jamal's commentaries from prison since 1992.


Listen to all Democracy Now! interviews with Mumia Abu-Jamal over the years in our archive:
http://www.democracynow.org/appearances/mumia_abu_jamal

Democracy Now!, is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on 1,200+ TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9am ET at http://democracynow.org

Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: http://owl.li/ruJ5Q

[bananas]

1. Transcript at Democracy Now!

Transcript at http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/21/mumia_abu_jamal_speaks_out_from

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Isn't that a double fail at the Federal level?

Not only first amendment free speech rights violated by that law, but also isn't it 'bill of attainder'ish, in that it's being done to specifically attack the rights of a specific individual?

[jberryhill]

3. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 US 401 - Supreme Court 1989

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. What about it?

I just grabbed several sites' summaries of that case, and it's all about preventing specific magazines from being delivered to inmates if they might promote riots in the jails, if I'm reading it correctly.

How does that apply to inmates having their own freedom to speak or publish?

[jberryhill]

5. It includes a fairly comprehensive review of prisoner First Amendment issues

Summaries of that case are not interesting to this question. The extended discussion IN the case is.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10863137217586802205&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. That provides more info on the case,

but I'm still not sure where you're going with bringing it up in regards to this particular legislation.

The closest part to me seems to be from Martinez, where

We pointed out in Martinez that outgoing correspondence that magnifies grievances or contains inflammatory racial views cannot reasonably be expected to present a danger to 412*412 the community inside the prison. Id., at 416. In addition, the implications for security are far more predictable. Dangerous outgoing correspondence is more likely to fall within readily identifiable categories: examples noted in Martinez include escape plans, plans relating to ongoing criminal activity, and threats of blackmail or extortion. Id., at 412-413. Although we were careful in Martinez not to limit unduly the discretion of prison officials to reject even outgoing letters, we concluded that the regulations at issue were broader than "generally necessary" to protect the interests at stake. Id., at 414.

and they continually circle back to the idea in both cases that the detrimental effects are being judged on what happens inside the prison, and that any such censorship depends on the correspondence being reasonably likely to cause harm in the prison itself. There is no hint as to any notion that censorship should be judged on how it might affect anyone outside of the prison.

This legislation seems to strike out into entirely new waters to me, trying to silence inmates because their words might 'cause grief' to people outside, not because it in any way affects the ability to maintain a safe environment inside the prison. It also seems designed to unduly impact those serving life sentences without parole, since anyone else can of course go right back to saying anything they want as soon as they leave the prison.

[jberryhill]

7. You had referred to "first amendment free speech rights"

In the context of persons convicted of a crime, there are a lot of restrictions on rights, so a blanket handwave at the First Amendment doesn't drill down to what sorts of restrictions have, or have not, been upheld.

This is not entirely new waters, as a number of states restrict publishing activities of prisoners, to avoid them from profiting from books or screenplay accounts of their offenses.

Fortunately for Mr. Abu Jamal, he has never been lacking for energetic legal counsel, and passing this law is really just handing him a new hobby, now that litigation in his own case has reached an end.

[RufusTFirefly]

8. My thoughts exactly. Bill of Attainder. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

9. How come those cheese-eating surrender monkeys get it and we don't?

In 2003, Mumia Abu-Jamal was awarded honorary citizenship of Paris.

In addition, his many supporters include

* Desmond Tutu
* Amy Goodman
* Cornel West
* Alice Walker
* the late Nelson Mandela (R.I.P)

plus a gigantic list of organizations, including unions and munipalities.

Most countries decry political prisoners in other countries but are tragically blind to their own.

[KoKo]

10. Recommend.