ACLU Challenges Law That Says Convicts Lose Free Speech Rights If Their Speech Upsets Crime Victims

Free Speech

from the free-speech-doesn't-equal-more-speech-for-some,-less-for-others dept

The ACLU is challenging a recently-passed Pennsylvania law that seeks to prevent convicts from publicly speaking or having their words published. The bill, hailed as “blatantly unconstitutional,” was passed with overwhelming support by the Pennsylvania legislature in response to convicted murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal being invited to give a commencement speech at Goddard College.

The new law provides for “injunctive relief” against “conduct which perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim,” including “temporary or permanent mental anguish.” The law obviously targets free speech, as can easily be confirmed by the incident that prompted its creation. The wording used creates a chilling effect, if not the direct encouragement of prior restraint.

The ACLU maintains that the “Silencing Act” allows courts to “enjoin and penalize any speech or other conduct by an ‘offender’ (undefined) that causes ‘mental anguish’ to a personal injury crime ‘victim’ (broadly defined) or otherwise ‘perpetuates the continuing effect of the crime on the victim’ (not otherwise defined).”

The law can be applied to third parties, such as newspapers, which publish speech by anyone who has committed a “personal injury crime” in Pennsylvania. In fact, during discussion by the state’s House Judiciary Committee prior to passage, the committee’s counsel indicated the courts “would have broad power to stop a third party, who is the vessel of that conduct or speech, from delivering it or publishing that information.”

It makes it possible for the state to regulate speech based on content. Individuals and organizations have to guess whether the law covers their speech, which means there is a “chilling effect” against their freedom of expression. It imposes a “prior restraint on speech,” something which the Supreme Court has regarded as the “most serious and intolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”

The ACLU is suing to have the law declared unconstitutional, citing the negative effect it will have on the free speech of those affected — which obviously include the much-hated Abu-Jamal, but also others who have been incarcerated and wish to speak about their personal experiences.

Steven Blackburn, Wayne Jacobs, Edwin Desamour and William Cobb, who were each convicted of “personal injury crimes” in Philadelphia County, are also plaintiffs.

“Since being released from prison, they have drawn on their personal experiences with the justice system to become community leaders working to reduce crime,” the complaint describes. “Through a combination of direct service and advocacy, they and the organizations they have founded and run have striven to help at-risk youth avoid lives of crime and to help those returning from prison reintegrate into their communities and avoid recidivism.

Public speaking—through presentations, lectures, panel appearances, media interviews, legislative testimony, documentaries and more—is a key component of their efforts.”

“Each of these four individuals reasonably fears that the Silencing Act will be used to enjoin or penalize such speech.”

The filing [pdf link] also points to the ongoing issues at Prison Legal News, a monthly publication “95% written by current and former inmates.” PLN is sitting on a submission by Abu-Jamal thanks to the legal threat posed by this law. City Paper senior staff editor Daniel Denvir is also quoted as saying his employer has held off on further reporting on wrongfully incarcerated inmates because of the so-called “Silencing Act.”

As has been stated countless times before, the answer to speech you don’t like is more speech, not less. Passing bad laws to shut up someone you’d rather not hear infringes on not only that person’s rights, but anyone else whose speech falls under the wording of the law — and this one is particularly broadly-written. The number of people who hold the power to preemptively strip away free speech include not only direct victims of personal crimes, but also children (and their legal guardians) who are “material witnesses,” anyone related to the victim by a “third degree of consanguinity or affinity,” anyone retaining a “common-law” relationship with the victim… even anyone living in the same household. The law also vaguely wanders around the term “victim,” making it unclear whether actual criminal charges are needed. The law could reasonably be construed as covering those involved in civil actions only.

Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Vereb — former police officer and crafter of the law — made it perfectly clear that he felt a “hate-filled murderer” (Abu-Jamal) shouldn’t be allowed to speak in a public forum. But that’s where he should have left it. Vereb’s opinion had been heard and noted. Others raised similar concerns, but Vereb actually held the power to do something about it. Because no one wanted to take the side of a convicted cop-killer, the bill passed out of the House unopposed and only 11 dissenting Senators voted against it when it rolled through that side of the legislature. Now, the law stands in the way of free speech in Pennsylvania, subjecting its citizens to censorship should they happen to be perpetrators of personal injury crimes… or simply providing them a platform.

Filed Under: free speech, mumia abu-jamal, pennsylvania