·Protect the First Amendment right to free speech of not only prisoners but also nonincarcerated citizens.

 ·Support prisoners that want to stay connected to family, garner support, and be proactive about their re-entry.

 

WE THE PEOPLE, incarcerated and nonincarcerated, petition our local and national representatives to uphold the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protecting the right to free speech. Specifically, to veto and block the unconstitutional South Carolina bill proposed by Rep. Wendell Gilliard, a Democrat from Charleston, targeting prisoners on Facebook and other social networking sites.

 

If it becomes law, the measure would fine prisoners $500 and add 30 days to a prisoner's sentence if he is caught interacting on social networking sites via cell phone, which legal experts say violates prisoners' free speech rights even if they are using contraband cell phones. Those who set up profiles face similar punishment.

 

The bill goes a step further, making it illegal for anyone to set up a page for a prisoner, which violates the free speech rights of nonincarcerated citizens, family, friends, and activists who set up pages for prisoners. Some of which are set up to garner legal support and the support of family and friends, to connect prisoners to family and friends, and to post a prisoner's rehabilitative efforts and progress, and conditions of confinement.

 

Rep. Gilliard bases the measure on the risk that prisoners may use social networking sites to harass and threaten crime victims and coordinate criminal activity. This is not a valid response. It would effectively negate the hundreds of prisoners who want to establish a true re-entry plan or proceed on a path of rehabilitation. Should there be an issue with a particular social networking site, or how it is being used by or on behalf of a prisoner, the prisons have the ability to issue incident reports for misuse and can request that the page be deactivated for abuse. Furthermore, Facebook and other similar social networking sites have effective methods in place that allow their users to report abuse and misuse of their services. To prohibit the creation and updating of all web sites and social networking sites by or on behalf of any and all prisoners based on possible abuse is not a sound defendable position and violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The South Carolina Department of Corrections has already implemented an unconstitutional policy (SCDC Policy OP-22.14 "Inmate Disciplinary System," Offense code 905) prohibiting the facilitation, conspiracy, aiding, and abetting in the creation or updating of an internet web site or social networking site. This policy goes as far as to punish prisoners for posting material on the internet with the assistance of nonincarcerated third parties. In essence, it prohibits people on the outside from helping prisoners access the internet indirectly using telephone, letters, and/or a network of family, friends, or activists on the  outside.

 

Milton Harvey, a South Carolina prisoner, was charged with 20 counts of 905-Creating and/or Assisting with a Social Networking Site in one incident where prison officials discovered his Facebook page. He was charged with separate counts for each of the 20 updates on his page. Harvey was sanctioned to one year in solitary confinement and one year loss of privileges, i.e. visitation, telephone, etc., for each count and an additional two years for the contraband cell phone. Harvey will have to serve 22 years in solitary confinement! Once he is released from solitary the suspension of his privileges will begin. There are no privileges while in solitary, so Harvey’s privileges will be suspended for a total of 44 years! He did not harass or threaten anyone, or coordinate any criminal activities. Harvey used Facebook to connect with family members and friends as most prisoners and people on the outside do.

 

Eddie Alewine created his Facebook page before his incarceration. However, the mother of his children continues to post on his page and tag photos to his page without his assistance or directions. Regardless, prison officials recently discovered Alewine’s page and charged him with separate counts for each of the six posts on his page. Alewine argued that he did not assist with those posts and that the page had been created prior to his incarceration. Prison officials still found him guilty! He will have to serve 3 years in solitary and his privileges will be suspended for 6 years. He did not even know what was taking place on his Facebook page.

 

Due to prison regulations, Facebook now prohibits prisoner pages and deactivates them when they become aware of them, regardless of who set them up.

 

Shakita Abraham set up a Facebook page for her imprisoned brother, Frenchis Abraham. A page she says she set up to garner support for her brother, keep him connected to family and friends, and to post his progress and conditions. She feels that such support is critical to a prisoner’s mental health and rehabilitative efforts and progress. However, Facebook locked the account because it did not comply with prison regulations. She is now distraught and distressed because of the situation and because she knows that if she set up another page for her brother he will be punished for her actions.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union successfully fought a similar law in Arizona in 2003. A federal judge ruled that, “prisoners may not be punished for posting material on the internet with the assistance of non-incarcerated third parties.” (Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty v. Ryan, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1199(D. Ariz. 2003)).

 

Meg Kinnard’s March 20, 2011 article, published in The Washington Post, addressed the South Carolina bill. She quoted two crime victims who complained because the prisoners that committed crimes against them had Facebook pages. They complained about possible harassment and intimidation, and not wanting to see the prisoners on Facebook. However, Kinnard’s article does not cite any instances of actual harassment, intimidation, or criminal activity. Contrarily, the article reports of one prisoner who posted on Facebook complaining about being in prison and wanting his life back.

 

Rep. Gilliard and the Department of Corrections’ aim is to regulate prisoners’ speech in the outside world and limit their support. They are trying to avoid the risk of prisoners publicizing the unconstitutional conditions and events taking place within the prisons.

 

The South Carolina Department of Corrections’ own website publicizes all of a prisoner’s disciplinaries, even though at these disciplinary hearings prisoners are not entitled to full due process rights. A mere scintilla of evidence is enough to uphold a conviction inside of a prison. The website does not publicize a prisoner’s accomplishments, progress, or conditions. There is no mention of the prisoners’ attainment of GED, trade certificates, etc., or any other positive information. Yet, they are now aiming to prohibit prisoners and their supporters from doing so.

 

WE THE PEOPLE, therefore, petition our representatives to veto and block Rep. Gilliard’s unconstitutional bill or we will file suit to have it struck down if it is passed.

 

WE THE PEOPLE petition our representatives to demand that the South Carolina Department of Corrections remove their unconstitutional policy or we will file suit to force them to do so.

 

WE THE PEOPLE petition the South Carolina Department of Corrections to remove their unconstitutional policy or we will file suit to force them to do so.

 

WE THE PEOPLE petition Facebook, Inc., to remove its prohibition of prisoner pages from their social networking site or we will boycott Facebook and file suit until they do so.

 

There is no First Amendment objection to prison officials saying prisoners cannot have cell phones, and doing the appropriate searches to make sure that rule is followed, but that is completely different than this bill that tries to regulate prisoners’ speech in the outside world.

 

WE THE PEOPLE will not stand by while people like the Democrat Rep. Wendell Gilliard, the South Carolina Department of Corrections, and Facebook attempt to regulate and censor free speech rights in America. If we did, how far would they go next?

To learn more about the creator of the petition please click here.