man in prison does not lose his right to free speech

[geronimotwo]

then why do convicted felons lose their right to bear arms?

http://www.yahoo.com/s/581122

edited version, for the point at hand.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Victims of Eric Rudolph, say he is taunting them from deep within the nation's most secure federal prison, and authorities say there is little they can do to stop him.

Housed in the most secure part of the prison, he has no computer and little contact with the outside world aside from writing letters.

But Rudolph's long essays have been posted on the Internet by a supporter

In one piece, Rudolph seeks to justify violence


Jeff Lyons said he doesn't often look at the Web site, which has had some items posted for nearly two years. But he said he is worried that Rudolph's messages could incite someone to violence

"He's still sending out harassing communication. He's still hurting us," Lyons said.

Bureau of Prisons regulations give wardens the right to reject correspondence by an inmate for "the protection of the public, or if it might facilitate criminal activity." That includes material "which may lead to the use of physical violence."

The Bureau of Prisons failed to respond to repeated inquiries from The Associated Press about whether Rudolph's writings violate prison rules.

But U.S. Attorney Alice Martin, who helped prosecute Rudolph for the Alabama bombing, said there is nothing the prison can do to restrict Rudolph or the supporter who keeps posting his writings.

"An inmate does not lose his freedom of speech," she said.


John Hawthorne, whose wife, Alice, was killed in the Olympic bombing, said he isn't bothered by Rudolph's essays.

"As far as I'm concerned he's out of sight, out of mind," Hawthorne said. "I don't mind him saying whatever he's going to say as long as they keep him locked up."

Supermax has a capacity of 490 and holds some of the nation's most infamous inmates, including Unabomber Theodore Kaczyinski and Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

A Justice Department report last fall criticized the prison for not properly screening inmate mail. It determined that three men convicted in the World Trade Center bombing were able to send dozens of letters overseas to suspected terrorists.

please, lets keep this thread dealing with why the first amendment right is honored, and the the second amendment goes by the wayside, rather than the reason for his bombing. thanks.

 

[Titan6]

Because guns are a bad thing to have in a prison full of killers?

Because people who show a propensity to commit crime should not be assisted in that way?

There are a lot of good reasons- Name one good reason why they should?

 

[K3]

Because guns are a bad thing to have in prison full of killers?

Because people who show a propensity to commit crime should not be assisted in that way?

There are a lot of good reasons- Name one good reason why they should?

What about when he's served his sentence and is released?

 

[Titan6]

That is not a good reason. Everyone knows that if you commit a felony you lose your rights to firearms. Therefore do not commit a felony. How hard is that?

 

[Cosmoline]

Getting more and more difficult. Most people have no idea how far the infamous felony creep has gone. Every year there's a new crusade from a new batch of screaming bluehairs, every year another crime is expanded. Many "misdemeanors" will rob you of your right to purchase firearms--even though you didn't serve a day in jail. All it takes is any conviction of any law where the theoretical penalty is over two years.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I am not sure I even understand what you think they could do to restrict his free speech.

He wrote a private letter to another person. The other person then published it.

How would you restrict that? Ban him from owning pens? This is not public speech.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Guns Are Bad

Because guns are a bad thing to have in prison full of killers?

Because guns are a bad thing

There's the essence of the matter.

Everyone knows that if you commit a felony you lose your rights to firearms.

Everyone knows that if you [upset a politician] you lose your rights to firearms.

Everyone knows that if [you're a commoner] you lose your rights to firearms.

Everyone knows . . . you lose your rights to firearms.

Everybody knows you shouldn't have a gun.

Everybody knows guns are bad.

Everybody knows . . .

I might suggest that the primary problem is that EVERYBODY DOESN'T KNOW the Constitution and -- more particularly -- the Second Amendment.

 

[geronimotwo]

it just seems biased that one amendment is upheld, and the other is thrown in the trash.

 

[MikePGS]

So does this imply that they are releasing people who aren't fully rehabilitated into the populace? Or are they saying that prison doesen't do much but they might as well let criminals out into the general population again? Your either rehabilitated or you aren't. The idea that someone who is 18 and messes up continues to be punished when they are 50 years old and having led an upstanding lawabiding life after they learned their lesson is ridiculous to me.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Oh, and while we're on that subject

What the heck is up with this insistence that bad people have to be allowed to wander around loose among honest citizens -- and then making honest citizens continually prove they're not the bad guys!?

***?

This is not hard.

When you let a man out of prison, you let him out because you can trust him to behave like a regular citizen.

If this is NOT true, then, pray, why on earth are you letting him out?

How does that serve the public interest?

You know, isn't it odd that, after a man has been released -- having served his time -- and establishes a home, that the police don't stop by and randomly just raid the place every few weeks or months, since clearly you lose your Fourth Amendment rights if you're a convicted felon, right?

Think it through.

None of the other rights enshrined in the BoR is denied a former felon.

But we have to abridge the Second for such a person because . . .

Fill in the blank.

. . . because it gives us another opportunity to deny a person the right to keep and bear arms.

Because guns in the hands of the commoner are bad.

Because the commoner is not worthy.

Those of you who aren't felons yet, be patient, we'll get around to you.

 

[Wheeler44]

Not every one released from prison is reformed. Many have just served their sentence imposed by the court or mandated by the legislature. Would you let a convicted child molester who has served his sentence babysit your kids? There is a process most felons can go through to have their rights restored. It can be costly, time consuming and invasive, but I would rather see it that way than have corrections hand a violent offender his firearm with his other personal property when they release him.

 

[Autolycus]

Its a tough situtation. I would say that when you go to prison you lose your rights. All of them. The ones that apply to the judicial system would apply until the person is sentenced.

However after they serve their sentence they should have all of their rights restored.

 

[WayneConrad]

Any man not incarcerated should be free; any man not free should be incarcerated. It is then to the people's advantage that incarceration is expensive, for it limits the number of citizens which the government can afford to strip of their rights. If you have more citizens to incarcerate than you can afford, then you are probably incarcerating many of them for the wrong reason, and removing the exercise of rights from people who are not actually dangerous to their society--or, at least, not as dangerous as a government which can now strip its citizen's rights on the budget plan.

 

[Xlr8torZ28]

I will attempt to add my 2 cents worth. The politicians will always attempt to gain power whenever possible. The biggest example is sex offenders. I am not trying to rally for them but, the politicians have used them as stepping stones to increase their power and number of votes. My friends brother was out with some friends one night and decided to moon some friends in a vehicle next to them... long story short, a family in a nearby car saw him, reported him, he got arrested and now has to register as a sex offender and will never be able to purchase a firearm legally, or get his CHL. He did recieve defferred adjudication but he will still have to register even after he completes his probation. The politicians will continue to put pressure on groups of people that they know society is not willing to speak out for. They will try to bleed this over into other groups of citizens as well as time goes by until they have total control over society.
That is why I have been a member of the ACLU for 7 years now.

 

[Titan6]

I am sorry you think guns are bad Arfin. But do not corrupt my words to say it. I said guns are a bad thing to have in a prison full of killers. Knives are bad thing to have in mental ward. Water is a bad thing to pour on burning Magnesium. If you can't figure this out I can't help you.

Getting more and more difficult. Most people have no idea how far the infamous felony creep has gone. Every year there's a new crusade from a new batch of screaming bluehairs, every year another crime is expanded. Many "misdemeanors" will rob you of your right to purchase firearms--even though you didn't serve a day in jail. All it takes is any conviction of any law where the theoretical penalty is over two years.

And yet I and nearly everyone know have managed to go our whole lives without this being an issue. The people I know that did not I prefer them unarmed. While it is a fantasy to suppose that they are unarmed, at least I know that it is more difficult for them.

When you let a man out of prison, you let him out because you can trust him to behave like a regular citizen.

Nope they let him to let the next guy in. Happens every day. Then he comes back later.

How does that serve the public interest?

It does not but it is how the system works.

None of the other rights enshrined in the BoR is denied a former felon.

Not true at all. Child molesters and other sex offenders are denied all kinds of rights as well they should, sometimes forever. People on parole are also denied all kinds of rights as well they should. You people arguing for known criminals to carry are nuts. Why don't you find something better to do with your time?

 

[armoredman]

When you let a man out of prison, you let him out because you can trust him to behave like a regular citizen.

If this is NOT true, then, pray, why on earth are you letting him out?

Are you serious? Do you think WE have a choice on when we let them out? The politicians YOU elect, appoint the judges, who hand down the sentances, according to the laws passed by the politicians YOU elected. I just keep them behind bars until that time has served.
Prison rehabilitates some, but not nearly all. We try, and reach a few, but many are unreachable. Oh well, aim well.
BTW, oh faint of heart, 96% of ALL inmates will be released some day. Some tomorrow, some today. Makes you all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?

 

[ATW525]

Because guns are a bad thing to have in a prison full of killers?

How is that a bad thing? It would certainly solve the overcrowding issue.

 

[nemoaz]

Actually, at common law, all felons were executed. So it's really an improvement if you consider some of the options.

Personally, I'd prefer to see all the felons executed.

 

[pcosmar]

Because guns are a bad thing to have in a prison full of killers?

First, most people in prison are not killers or sex offenders. Most prisons are full of non-violent and victimless crimes.
Murder and rape are a smaller percentage.

Second, guns can be had inside a prison. You can get anything inside.

Third, Though it is true that most who are convicted continue a life of crime.
at least 20% do not.( that was the stat' when I got out). That means Thousands of people that have turned their lives around.

Felon is misused and over used term.

 

[mstirton]

I've been saying this all along - WE NEED AN ISLAND PENAL COLONY. This solves all the problems. We drop them off and don't have to pay a dime more than the boat fuel to get them there. They get to keep all of their rights and can do whatever the heck they want.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted Nemoaz:
Actually, at common law, all felons were executed. So it's really an improvement if you consider some of the options.

Personally, I'd prefer to see all the felons executed.

Got a source for this "fact"?

And what about innocent people who are falsely imprisoned? Or people who committed no violent felony? Martha Stewart, G. Gordon Liddy, or others who committed a non-violent felony such as excessive speeding.

 

[armoredman]

First, most people in prison are not killers or sex offenders. Most prisons are full of non-violent and victimless crimes.
Murder and rape are a smaller percentage.

Second, guns can be had inside a prison. You can get anything inside.

You have never set foot inside a real prison, have you.
There are some in prison who even we believe shouldn't be here, but the large majority inside the walls are here because they put themselves here. Victimless crimes? Like what? Show me one crime that cannot harm anyone, that would still call for prison time? When you understand more about what REALLY goes on inside the wire, then talk.
Here's a link to our latest stats. http://www.azcorrections.gov/adc/reports/CAG/CAGMar07.pdf
If you don't want to click, I'll just tell you,
Offense Profile march 2007
VIOLENT, murder, assault, robbery, sex crimes - 14,415
PROPERTY, burglury, stealing - 9640
DRUG, possession, sale, manufacture -7,022
OTHER, DUI, weapons -5207.

Looks like violent crime wins the race...again.
BTW, the most common weapon inside the walls is called a SHANK, homemade knife. I have seen ONE firearm, and it never made it past the sallyport gate, due to a stupid contractor. I have seen lots of shanks, made out of stuff you wouldn't believe can hold an edge.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Titan6

I am sorry you think guns are bad Arfin.

Wow. There's a stretch.

But do not corrupt my words to say it.

And another stretch.

I said guns are a bad thing to have in a prison full of killers.

I know.

Knives are bad thing to have in mental ward. Water is a bad thing to pour on burning Magnesium.

Gasp. I know that, too.

If you can't figure this out I can't help you.

Getting more and more difficult. Most people have no idea how far the infamous felony creep has gone. Many "misdemeanors" will rob you of your right to purchase firearms--even though you didn't serve a day in jail. All it takes is any conviction of any law where the theoretical penalty is over two years.

And yet I and nearly everyone know have managed to go our whole lives without this being an issue.

Patience. They'll get around to you.

When you let a man out of prison, you let him out because you can trust him to behave like a regular citizen.

Nope they let him to let the next guy in. Happens every day. Then he comes back later.

Sounds optimum to me.

How does that serve the public interest?

It does not but it is how the system works.

Yeah. That's working well.

None of the other rights enshrined in the BoR is denied a former felon.

Not true at all. Child molesters and other sex offenders are denied all kinds of rights as well they should, sometimes forever. People on parole are also denied all kinds of rights as well they should.

And I may be wrong in that context.

You people arguing for known criminals to carry are nuts. Why don't you find something better to do with your time?

Uh, hello? I'm not arguing for known criminals to carry, I'm arguing for better criminal management.

Titan, you're familiar with my writing, or should be.

I don't do personal attacks.

I took what you wrote and distilled the gun-grabber's sentiment from it. I didn't allege that such a sentiment was yours.

I disagree with the status quo.

I disagree with the idea that it makes any sense at all to pretend to rehabilitate criminals, turn them loose, and then treat the general public as though THEY are criminals.

I disagree with the idea that any system of rules will keep bad guys disarmed. Pretending it can, and pretending that disarming the decent citizens helps -- at all -- is folly at best and dishonest at worst.

My rule of thumb is this: If you're not locked up, then you're carrying. If you're not allowed to carry, then you're locked up.

I know many think this is oversimplification.

You see, the default condition of every citizen should be "armed and packing."

The criminal should never have -- EVER have -- the expectation that his victim is unarmed.

He should fully expect to be shot in the process of committing a crime.

Those who grasp that may find another line of work.

Those who don't won't last long.

Certainly a period of relative, but limited, chaos would ensue if we just dropped that condition into the nation as it is today.

And in the end the bad guys would have a new paradigm: no more soft targets.

The former victims would have self respect, confidence, and something we've not seen in a long time: a spine.

I guess my "utopia" is a little different from some.

Personally, I'll take my slightly chaotic world over the security of a nanny state any day.

But that's just me.

 

[Titan6]

Good luck with your utopia Arfin. Like all utopias it has an issue or two. Maybe you can work 'em out.

 

[theken206]

"Personally, I'd prefer to see all the felons executed."

***Repeats mantra "I WILL NOT HOLD STUPID PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR SAYING STUPID THINGS, ONLY DOING THEM"***:banghead:

J/K

"I've been saying this all along - WE NEED AN ISLAND PENAL COLONY. This solves all the problems. We drop them off and don't have to pay a dime more than the boat fuel to get them there. They get to keep all of their rights and can do whatever the heck they want."

This really doesnt sound like a solid plan IMHO