Prison Pete
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Now This Is Irony.
While the rest of the world seems to move at the speed of light, we residents of the state-funded communities are on tape delay.
I think the saying used to be "Oh that is so yesterday." For those of you in the Free World, today the saying is more like, "Oh that is so half-hour ago."
Meanwhile back at my little world we are lucky to be only two weeks behind, sometimes. I was catching up on some of my reading today (which as I type this is April 17, 2005), getting through Thursday, April 8, Saturday. April 10, and Friday April 9.
I am happy to report that the Pope has finally been laid to rest, but you all know that already. Yes, the dates are out of order, but that is how I read them. I did not realize the error until I picked up Friday's paper and realized the paper had stories that I had already read a follow-up to. I felt like I was caught in a time warp. In today's mail I will probably receive last Thursday's and Friday's papers.
I was reading Friday's paper, April 9, and came across the following in the "National Briefing" section. It appeared the same day Prison Pete was mentioned on MSNBC, and the same day as Michelle Malkin's comments about prisoner's free speech rights. I think you will find the story clearly states the rights of prisoners.
"CALIFORNIA: ANGRY LETTER IS RULED FREE SPEECH:
A federal appeals court overturned the conviction of an Oregon inmate for writing an angry letter to President Bush; the message was protected speech, it said. The inmate, Jonathan Lincoln, tried to send the letter from a state prison shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. A district court found Mr. Lincoln guilty of threatening the President's life.
But while the letter's language might have been disturbing, it broke no laws, said a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. "Lincoln was exercising his constitutional right to endorse the violent actions of bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which is protected speech," Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson wrote. (Reuters)"
Yes, even in prison we still maintain our constitutional right of protected speech. I guess that should settle the issue for once and all. Now I suppose if you want to amend the Constitution. . .
I think the saying used to be "Oh that is so yesterday." For those of you in the Free World, today the saying is more like, "Oh that is so half-hour ago."
Meanwhile back at my little world we are lucky to be only two weeks behind, sometimes. I was catching up on some of my reading today (which as I type this is April 17, 2005), getting through Thursday, April 8, Saturday. April 10, and Friday April 9.
I am happy to report that the Pope has finally been laid to rest, but you all know that already. Yes, the dates are out of order, but that is how I read them. I did not realize the error until I picked up Friday's paper and realized the paper had stories that I had already read a follow-up to. I felt like I was caught in a time warp. In today's mail I will probably receive last Thursday's and Friday's papers.
I was reading Friday's paper, April 9, and came across the following in the "National Briefing" section. It appeared the same day Prison Pete was mentioned on MSNBC, and the same day as Michelle Malkin's comments about prisoner's free speech rights. I think you will find the story clearly states the rights of prisoners.
"CALIFORNIA: ANGRY LETTER IS RULED FREE SPEECH:
A federal appeals court overturned the conviction of an Oregon inmate for writing an angry letter to President Bush; the message was protected speech, it said. The inmate, Jonathan Lincoln, tried to send the letter from a state prison shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. A district court found Mr. Lincoln guilty of threatening the President's life.
But while the letter's language might have been disturbing, it broke no laws, said a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. "Lincoln was exercising his constitutional right to endorse the violent actions of bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which is protected speech," Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson wrote. (Reuters)"
Yes, even in prison we still maintain our constitutional right of protected speech. I guess that should settle the issue for once and all. Now I suppose if you want to amend the Constitution. . .
Comments:
Interesting that the courts are recognizing first amendment rights for incarcerated felons but my local school system refuses to extend the same rights to their students.
Post a Comment
