Rhode Island prison chief A.T. Wall
Prisoners have free-speech rights, too
Does a prison inmate forfeit his First Amendment rights? Yes, to an extent. But as US Magistrate Lincoln Almond patiently explained last September, an inmate who criticizes a prison policy that is applicable to other inmates and who provides them with relevant information — unlike a "personal matter of purely individual interest" — may indeed be engaging in protected speech.
Almond was aiming his words at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (DOC), whose director, Ashbel T. "A.T." Wall II, was fighting a lawsuit brought by Jason Cook, an inmate at the Adult Correctional Institute in Cranston. Cook claimed that after he complained to The Providence Journal in 2007 about a new policy that restricted reading materials an inmate could receive (which itself raised First Amendment issues and was later rescinded), prison authorities retaliated by taking away his kitchen job, trashing his cell, holding him in segregation, and subjecting him to strip-searches. The resolution of Cook's lawsuit is still pending.
In defending itself against Cook's lawsuit, the DOC argued, among other things, that Cook had no First Amendment right to speak to the Journal, thus prompting Almond's finding. The DOC appealed. In February, US District Judge William Smith upheld most of Almond's recommendations, including his finding that Cook did indeed enjoy some First Amendment protections.
"The DOC's position that inmates could be disciplined simply for bringing prison conditions and policies to the public's attention was extremely troubling," said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU.
Convicted criminals, understandably, give up many of their rights when they are sentenced to prison. But it doesn't and shouldn't put them beyond the protection of the Constitution. A.T. Wall may not like it — but at least now he presumably understands it.
Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Peter Lauriat
Twitter emerges as a vital news tool — but not in this courtroom
The courts remain our least open institution. Twitter has helped change that, as reporters are able to send updates throughout the day from inside the courtroom. For instance, a phalanx of media is now live-tweeting every moment of the Whitey Bulger trial.
Then there is Judge Peter Lauriat, who last winter presided over the case of Nathaniel Fujita, convicted in March of murdering his girlfriend. Lauriat had no problem with television cameras or even live-blogging — but he drew the line at Twitter.
According to Robert Ambrogi, a lawyer who is also executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, Lauriat initially banned Twitter from anywhere inside the Middlesex Superior Courthouse in Woburn. He later backed off and allowed tweeting from a separate media room, but not from the courtroom itself.
"The ban on tweeting drew the unavoidable question: What's the difference?" asked Ambrogi. The answer is unclear.
David Riley wrote at the Wicked Local Blog that Lauriat was concerned that jurors were more likely to run across a tweet by accident than another form of media.
Jeff Hermes, director of the Digital Media Law Project, reported that Lauriat expressed doubts about the quality of journalism when reduced to 140-character updates, and about his inability to prevent attendees who had not registered as journalists from firing up Tweetbot on their smartphones.
None of these were good enough reasons to ban what has become a vital news medium. Lauriat acted as he did because he could. He shouldn't have had that option.
Dan Kennedy is an assistant professor of journalism at Northeastern University and a panelist on WGBH-TV's Beat the Press. He has been compiling the Muzzle Awards since their debut in 1998. He can be reached at email@example.com.