freedom of speech denied


by Alex King

We are given the right to freedom of speech by the constitution of the United States of America. At least, that’s what those in power preach. Recently, some new information has come to my attention.

In many states, DOC is trying its hand at censorship. This is the blatant emergence of that tyrannical force I’ve previously mentioned. I would like to have a public opinion on the matter: do you believe it’s legal for the Department of Corrections (guardsman and caretakers of incarcerated persons) to censor the free public?

Yesterday, DOC was permitted to stop those in their care from having any voice in social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. If today we stand idly by while DOC stops the free person from discussing the incarcerated on social media, what will tomorrow bring? Perhaps the next thing we’ll see is the emergence of a new aspect of the sentence to include having the thumbs and tongue cut off. Perhaps DOC will next censor private blogs so incarcerated persons cannot be mentioned there as well. Maybe they’ll get confident and try both simultaneously.

When will it end? When will those in power stop demanding more power? Prisoners are already physically restrained, mentally restrained through lack of proper education, constrained in matters of communication, halted from proper emotional/spiritual development… need I go on? DOC got its wish: they have the licensure to crush in mind, body and spirit those entrusted by the courts to their care. Now, they seek power over the free person.

Again I ask, do you believe this to be legal? Do you think this is just?



Weather Report

86° and Clear


6 Responses to “freedom of speech denied”

  1. 1 Hat Bailey
    April 14, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Neither legal or just in my opinion Alex. It is an ugly development that does not bode well for the direction our once great republic is going. I am old enough to have seen the great downward fall along that slippery slope to total tyranny, and I don’t like it. We also see this creeping censorship in food, health matters, the climate debate, 911, Sandy Hook, and many others. I am also one who does not believe that one can permanently lose unalienable human rights because of a mistake no matter how serious. Look up the meaning of “unalienable” sometime. People who harm others must be restrained at least until they are again in their right mind, but this must be the minimum reasonably required for the protection of individuals from further harm. Treating human beings as less than human is not in my opinion helpful at restoring sanity and getting in ethics on someone who has messed up and harmed others. I do believe in redemption, rehabilitation, and forgiveness and it starts with the words of the Master in Luke 6:31.

    • April 14, 2016 at 12:30 pm

      If only the intent of the executive branch in practice, i.e. DOC, were to merely restrain until rehabilitation is achieved, I would be in complete error in confronting their methodology. Unfortunately, rehabilitation is no factor, only charts outlining terms of imprisonment or other punishment. Recidivism claims an extremely high statistic where it should be virtually unheard of. We have the means of rehabilitating, we can aid in healing, we can help those in need… we (society in general, to clarify) have simply refused. I suppose it’s just too much work. My hope is that, in time, we (those members of society who muster the moral integrity to care) will be able to halt malpractice and institute a new and better way. Thank you, Hat Bailey, for your comment and for sharing your views and insight.

      -Alex King

  2. 3 Helena V. Garilano
    April 14, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Hi Dan, Glad you are still involved in helping these kids. I think if Donald Trump is President we will see things change. They don’t want you to tell because they are doing something wrong and don’t want it to get out to the public who can stop it. If only a mass amount of people would get involved!

    • April 14, 2016 at 5:03 pm

      I don’t agree with you about the desirability of Donald Trump, but more people becoming involved would be good. Trump only cares about himself, not these kids.

  3. 5 Frank Manning
    April 14, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    “We are given the right to freedom of speech by the constitution of the United States of America.” No, Alex, that is not correct. As a nation we regard freedom of speech as the god-given inalienable right of all free-born Americans. The First Amendment recognizes and upholds that right. It does not grant that right, as though some enlightened despot has thrown some crumbs to his humble subjects.

    I will raise this issue with the ACLU. I dare some Texas warden, some wannabe tinhorn tyrant, to censor me or this blog or anyone else’s discussion of the incarcerated. I guarantee he will not only lose, but will be bankrupted, pursued with the full armed might of the federal government, prosecuted in a federal court, and incarcerated in a federal prison for a very long time.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that state prison inmates still enjoy many constitutional rights. Time and again federal courts and marshals have forcibly stopped state prison authorities from violating the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. The federal courts have also upheld some restrictions on inmates’ rights. Mostly, those rulings are intended to protect victims of crime from being terroized by the imprisoned perpetrators.

    That notice that Death Row prisoners “ARE PROHIBITED FROM MAINTAINING ACTIVE SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS …” might be upheld by the courts. But one thing is absolutely certain: Hell will freeze over first before “people in the free world could have action taken against them.” That is total bullshit, an empty terroristic threat. I challenge that warden of the Polunsky Unit to try to threaten me like that. I will hit back hard with so many injunctions and restraining orders and punitive damages that the motherless son of a bitch will be spinning faster than a water molecule in an MRI unit.

    • April 15, 2016 at 8:41 am

      I acknowledge the merit of your advice, Frank. Indeed, my language in this post was mild, to say the least. Consider this to be nothing more than a preamble, something to introduce the concept to the readers of Wandervogel Diary. You are absolutely correct, though. The constitution outlines unalienable rights, and once taken are no longer rights, much less unalienable. These basic aspects of living in a free country are slowly becoming privileges. To have some glorified security guard tell the free person they cannot say what they will, privately or publicly, so long as the action brings no harm to person or property is in direct violation of this right. To constrain those incarcerated may be understandable in certain extreme circumstance, but to issue blanket restraints on the entire populace is nothing short of tyrannical. As a free person, I will not sit in silence while this happens. Having once experienced incarceration, I know, too, how little those inside are incapable of defending themselves. I will continue to post on this matter and will be looking for any other legal action I am able to take against this move towards unlawful, unjust censorship. Thank you for your insight and promise of action.

      -Alex King

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: