Let us not wade into an
argument as to whether Mumia Abu-Jamal is a cop-killer or a victim
of a corrupt justice system. Actually, go ahead and wade into the
argument if you like. Whether Abu-Jamal is innocent is not actually
relevant to this blog post, but the argument surrounding it
certainly is.
Pennsylvannia, the state in which Abu-Jamal was born and where
his crime took place, passed a law this week that essentially
declared that those convicted of crimes
no longer have free speech. That is not the stated intent of
the law (it never is), but it’s absurdly clear it is what has
happened. This week Gov. Tom Corbett signed into law a bill that
allows victims of crime to go to a judge and stop a convicted
criminal from engaging in any “conduct which perpetuates the
continuing effect of crime on the victim.”
What could that possibly mean? It has to do with Abu-Jamal
giving a pre-recorded commencement speech to graduates at Goddard
College in Vermont. This apparently shocked the conscience of
Pennsylvania’s legislature and Maureen Faulkner, the widow of slain
officer Daniel Faulkner. So they’ve introduced a
victim’s veto. If you’ve been convicted of a crime in
Pennsylvania, you can’t say or do anything that makes the victim or
victims feel “a temporary or permanent state of mental
anguish.”
The wording of the law is vague—but makes sure to note that
redress involves collecting “reasonable attorney fees and other
costs associated with the litigation.” Does it mean that a
convicted person who continues to protest his innocence in media
interviews is breaking the law? The law criminalizes conduct, not
just speech. Would asking the Innocence Project for help
with your case violate the law? Would doing anything outside of the
standard appeals process “perpetuate the continuing effect of the
crime”?
The Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
is
not impressed:
“This bill is written so broadly that it is unclear what
behavior is prohibited,” said Reggie Shuford, executive director of
the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “Essentially, any action by an inmate or
former offender that could cause ‘mental anguish’ could be banned
by a judge.“That can’t pass constitutional muster under the First
Amendment.”
They note that that the bill could also put the kibosh on
efforts by imprisoned criminals to engage in political advocacy and
criminal justice reform, which I suspect is a feature, not a bug.
The state’s victim advocate, Jennifer Storm, nevertheless insists,
“We’re not limiting one’s free speech. That is not what this bill
is about.” That is literally what you are doing. This law was
passed for the expressed purpose of censoring criminals.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/ZLVAjX
via IFTTT