How far to take the First Ammendment?

Great Debates
1

A man is in prison for murdering a college student. He has access to a computer and posts letters gloating about his crime. The victim’s mother is suing.

There are a few specifics to this case that I think get in the way of my question.

  1. I want to ignore the fact that he shouldn’t have access to a computer in the first place. I personally don’t think someone on death row should be messing around on his computer (except maybe for reasons of legal defence).

  2. It mentions that ‘he is making money off of it’ which I think is illegal. I thought the law said a criminal is not allowed to make money off of the fruits of his crime. So let’s ignore this.

Those aren’t the questions that interest me.

My question is regarding this, “And you can’t just publish anything that you want to and then wave the sword of the First Amendment and say you’re not subject to action.”

So here’s a criminal who wants to publish the gory details of his crime for attention. Is this violating the spirit of the First Ammendment or not?

2

However abominable his writings are, I do not think it should be illegal for him to publish them.

3

I have to agree with Juanita. It shouldn’t be illegal. I don’t think he should be able to make any money on the deal, and if he crosses a line to actually posting threats, then, well, he’s crossed a line and should be stopped, but otherwise I think the 1st amendment must be recognized.

I realize this is probably very painful for the victim’s family but there’s also nothing stopping them from responding, even if it’s simply to say how hateful and despicable they feel his actions are, or what they feel should happen to him, ie. death penalty. That’s their right.

Once again, it’s important to point out that what the first amendment really does is protect unpopular speech.

4

That’s not a question, it’s a statement.

And you can’t automatically wave the first ammendment–there are well-known exceptions to the constitutional protections on free speech. I think the laws about not profitting from crimes via book deals and such are on a state level–and if they’ve been vetted by the courts (and IIRC, they have) and this guy is profitting by publishing, then he shouldn’t be allowed to publish it for profit.

On the completely seperate issue of the spirit of the first ammendment (which boils down to personal opinion), I’m an absolutist and would say that he should be allowed to publish (and I don’t like laws that prohibit him from profitting).

5

He is a prisoner, though, so he does not have quite as much freedom as the rest of us.

I agree that, as an administrative matter, computer access should be removed from Mr. Trawick. If he wants to publish so badly, he can do it with pencil and pen.

Oh, and pencils can be weapons in a prison, so we’ll have to remove them from cells. Mr. Trawick can write with crayon if he wants to.

6

I’m sure felons gloat about their crimes all the time to their peers. I don’t think free speech can be curtailed based on that.

I’m in the camp of people who feel that people incarcerated should have their priveleges restricted. In this fuckers case, severely restricted.

7

From what I could tell, it looks like he’s sending paper letters and to people on the outside who then post them web–it’s not like the guy is blogging from his death row cell.

8

I’d say it is a wrongful curtailment of his free speech but only because of the the two constraints you place on the debate. Either one of those reasons are perfect justification for his free speech to be curtailed and it’s artificial to just ignore them for the purpose of debate. Aside from rehabilitation, which I don’t think should be a consideration here, incarceration is meant to remove harmful people from society at large to a place where they aren’t able to hurt people anymore. Society would be the better without him but he’s still playing his harmful part in it.

I feel he should be allowed a computer and internet access but only to help with his defense/appeals, to maintain contact with family or to assist him in the defense of the human rights that society have decreed he can keep but his wider participation should be removed especially considering the harmful nature of it. The only mitigating factor is that outside, free parties are colluding in disseminating the material and their entitlement to free speech should have a lot more sway.

Many people almost seem to get an adrenalin rush from being outraged. For their benefit, I found this link with more information regarding Trawick, the webmaster and their activities. I would love to see a really strong argument for shutting both of them down (and up) but I can’t come up with a consistent and sufficiently just one.
http://www.crime-research.org/news/2004/01/Mess1501.html