Monday, May 02, 2005

My Internet Access isn't that Good

Can someone please explain this to me?

Thousands of other inmates access the Internet indirectly using inmate telephone and mail privileges and a network of family, friends or activists.

So, is that what I have to do to get cheap (free) internet access? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall any constitutional provision for internet access. Why should tax payers foot the bill for internet access for criminals which allows them to contact liberal wack jobs or worse yet their victims?

Arizona inmates successfully challenged a state law that prohibited helping inmates access the Internet. The law was passed after a murder victim's family complained about the killer's Internet pen pal ad.

Naturally, the ACLU is on board with this idea.

"They're sentenced to death, they're not sentenced to silence," Lamourie said. "Even if just one was (innocent), how can we silence someone who's going to be killed in our name?"

Easy, shut them up. He murdered someone! He made the choice to take the life of another human being. (Maybe if he killed a mink, they wouldn't be in such a hurry to stand up for him.) By doing so, he forfeited his rights. All of them. He isn't going to "be killed in our name" just for the fun of it. He is not like every other citizen of the U.S. and thus eligible for constitutional protections.

Let's look at this from the other side. What if the family of the murder victim (victims themselves, which should be important in the culture of victimization) were to publish a web site with pictures of the murderer and information about him? Would the ACLU support the rights of the victims to speak out about the criminal who victimized them? Somehow I doubt that the victim's right to "free speech" would trump the criminals right to privacy.