In
July of 1925 a schoolteacher named John Scopes went on trial in the small town
of
Like
both counsels in that noted case, I'm arguing today about an issue I feel
strongly about, as it involves the pinnacle of human growth. At issue is the
right of the mind to grow, while the body it resides in lives in a negative
prison environment. My future ability to seek and realize intellectual growth
will be determined by the outcome of this issue here or in the appeal courts. I
view the expression of the opposition position as a litmus test of a state
government department to determine if prisoners will docilely stand by and allow
a fundamental constitutional right to be arbitrarily usurped. I believe the
First Amendment of the US Constitution (right to free speech) was written
specifically to protect all citizens' rights to seek information and to grow
intellectually without abusive government interference, government restriction
of those rights, or government creation of prior restraints to chill the ability
to seek and receive information, via policies denying access to literature,
printed word, and thought. I believe the First Amendment was specifically
written to protect freedom of religion, provide and protect freedom of speech,
and to allow for a free exchange of ideas among citizens in a democracy, which
is precisely how the
Many
issues and interpretations of issues are important to our lives. Topping the
list are issues dealing with the quality of life and ability to grow as human
beings. Sometimes government actions reveal that the government holds a
different interpretation of our rights and issues affecting them, from those
living under its jurisdiction-interpretations often influenced by political
trends. I have found in life, though, there are at least two sides to
everything: all issues, all stories. To be?lieve otherwise would be to accept as
gospel truth four great lies of our time:
"Y2K
will change life as we love t!" "The check is in the mail."
"This
is 100% guaranteed to work as advertised."
"Hello,
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."
I
believe I have a fundamental right to exchange ideas freely with free
individuals of the same political preference as my own. My side is. I believe I
have a fundamental right to receive printed material dealing with my choice of
political ideology.
When
I hear of acts of civil disobedience, riots by demonstrators, or force employed
by law enforcement authorities responding to demonstrators, I'm curious about
what caused those on opposing sides of an issue to clash. I want to learn about
all sides of the equation, to learn about the catalyst which escalated a heated
situation to the point of violence. Only after all the facts are in can I then
make an informed decision or choice of which side of the issue I most identify
with. I refuse to accept one side over the other without knowing all the
details. I refuse to display blind acceptance of any side of any issue about
which I am not knowledgeable. I refuse to accept that I am expected to subscribe
to the reasoning of one side and not be permitted to acquaint myself with that
of the other. Isn't this what a democracy is supposed to be about-the freedom to
seek knowledge, to learn, to choose according to our own dictates, without
government acts of persecution against us? In my legal case (Thompson
vs. Campbell, Commissioner, Tennessee Dept. of Corrections), the state
government defendant wishes to have a distinction made between the rights of
prisoners and the rights of the free to embrace particular politics, and wishes
to restrict access to political literature abrasive to prison officials. When
government at any level, anywhere, in the streets or prisons, can dictate to
individuals which politics they may or may not subscribe to, then democracy has
gone the way of the dinosaurs. There is not a wall between the [
As
my choice of political ideology, I embrace anarchism. My choice of politics is
abrasive and repugnant to prison officials. I do not embrace it from a desire to
destroy, but because I'm an optimist. I believe people are capable of governing
themselves. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but if I am, I have a right to dream, if that
is indeed the case! In the absence of government as we know it, I don't believe
the worst in people would evidence itself; rather, the best would rise to the
surface. Let me briefly explain the politics of anarchism. Anarchism is a
political preference taught on college campuses as an alternative political
ideology. It is an old political ideology with roots in the working class and
great thinkers. The works of Michel Bakunin, Pierre Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin
(his Conquest of Bread and Bakunin's God and the State are
required reading in civil or government courses at some colleges), James Godwin,
Malatesta, Colin Ward, Rudolph Rocker, George Woodock. Alexander Berkman and
Emma Goldman are but a few of the great anarchist authors. Contrary to popular
belief and media sensationalism, anarchism does not advocate running wild in the
streets committing mayhem, performing acts of terrorism, creating all manner of
chaos, throwing bombs or perpetrating senseless acts of violence. Anarchism
means people taking responsibility for themselves and others instead of paying
the government gang to do it for them! There are as many diverse views of
anarchism as there are anarchists. Some label themselves as federated
anarchists, others as anarcho-primitivists, anarco-syndicalists, anarchist
purists, etc.
What
is being put to the test in my case is an idea, a political theory, a political
ideology. Logically during this trial, much will be put forward by the
defendants about certain kinds of printed material in a prison inmate's
possession posing a perceived "threat to orderly operation and security of
the institution." My opinion is that such an argument is hogwash!
If prisoners'
possession of such printed material and their being allowed to discuss political
issues with others of like persuasion through the mail pose a legitimate threat
of any kind to the order or security of any state penal institution, then I wish
to hear specific facts of such incidents, not merely vague innuendos or profound
judgmental proclamations replete with "might," "may," or
"could." I want to see or hear documented proof of incidents, not
conjectures, exaggerations or questionable speculations. I want to hear facts,
not word-play smoke screens! It may be espoused that the absence of documented
incidents is in fact because such literature is banned. I see something
inherently faulty in such logic. I could respond with a comparable quantum leap
of logic which makes as much sense to me. E.g., I could say I've invented a
mustard plaster I wear on my chest, repugnant to Tibetan yaks, and the fact I
haven't been charged and trampled by a yak is my proof the mustard plaster
works! My example takes the same license with the truth that state officials do
on anarchistic literature posing a threat. Hopefully readers won't believe my
mustard plaster story or their faulty logic either! Show facts, not conjecture.
Let
me give you some facts. The political theory of anarchism articulates a more or
less coherent framework for understanding why resistance is to be expected.
Reacting with irritation or even outrage to the exercise of obvious arbitrary
authority is what I consider natural and human.
Anarchism
entails a relentless critique of power, whether power derives from a legitimate
or an illegitimate source. I think we all realize power frowns on criticism.
Resistance to the arbitrary capricious nature of authority and power is older
than the theory of anarchism. Those who directly suffer oppressive conditions
are those who understandably resist. They do not need a poem, magazine, book,
newspaper or letter to provide inspiration for resistance. Nothing anyone writes
can compel prisoners to want their captors to behave humanely; compel them to
accept their suffering at the hands of those with power and desire to control
their every activity. No printed word can incite people with common sense and
intelligence to do anything they don't want to do in the first place. The sole
reason for people become "incited" is the reality of their individual
belief system being affronted, the strength of their convictions put to the test
on a specific issue, and their sincere dedication to the beliefs they dearly
hold when confronted by adversity. Strongly-held, sincere belief and conviction
are the sole factors that prompt people to whatever action-or inaction-they
decide to display in specific circumstances and situations. I have been inspired
to action by only two specific texts: the Bible and the Constitution of the
Tennessee
Department of Corrections has banned, by policy, receipt of anarchism literature
by prisoners. Their decision to ban this literature in their prisons is ironic
because such literature is not banned in some other state and federal prisons
nor from general public consumption. Nor is this ban uniformly or consistently
enforced in
and
declared it contraband. Further, anarchism publications denied to me were
received by another
Power
is based on perception, self-image, obfuscation and mystification. On a
day-to-day basis most of us are not controlled by laws. We know laws exist, but
they don't control our every action. We are instead controlled by intelligence,
common sense, habit and a concept of right vs. wrong. It could be observed that
we live in a symbolic fog, unconsciously and uncritically obeying laws and rules
we had no part in making, that don't always serve what we believe are our best
or community interests. Power is self-hypnosis; it is our selves used against
us, and sometimes govern?ments abuse that power-history is resplendent with
examples. I am writing here about what I con?sider, think and believe to be an
arbitrary abuse of power. I believe I have a legitimate interest in receiving
political literature of my choice, embracing a politic of my choice, and
communicating freely with those with similar beliefs as long as I am not
breaking the law in any way. I believe I should be allowed to communicate with
an anarchist group that provides legal information through raising funds for law
books or searching out requested legal decisions on the Internet at resource
sites for use by anarchist prisoners. It is the Anarchist Prisoners Legal Aid
Network. I fail to see any other legal aid organizations symbolically knocking
on the prison gates, offering help through the mail.
State
government has care, custody and control of my body 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. My movement is monitored. I am told when to eat, sleep, shower; all
aspects of my life are controlled to some varying extent. All but my mind is
monitored, but even there it appears an ap?parent desire exists to control my
thoughts, to deny me access to ideas, to not only stifle free speech but stomp
on it. Why? Because of fear of an idea, a political ideology abrasive and
repugnant to prison officials. There appears to exist fear of inmate possession
of a political idea and evidently a fear of people communicating about it! One
defendant stated under oath that approx. 10 Tennessee Dept. of Correction
prisoners, out of some 22-25,000 total, receive animal rights and environmental
movement literature. This is a percentage of those receiving such materials of
1/2200th or 1/2500th? of the entire state's prison
population. Hardly a significant threat! With that small percentage, it sounds
like much ado about nothing! The tiny number receiving these kinds of printed
matter really doesn't matter. It is the idea which is feared.
But in trying to crush it by denying printed material, prison officials
ignore one of life's truths: the fastest way to make a malicious rumor-or an
idea-spread like wildfire is to attempt to suppress it!
The
political ideology aspect of the trial which could emerge from Thompson
vs. Campbell boils down to state officials' fear of thought. Thought! As 1984-Orwellian
and absurd as that sounds in these enlightened millennium times! Unlike Mr.
Scopes' teaching evolutionist theory, I don't
teach
anarchism nor discuss it with others unless asked a specific question. I was
taught as a child that a person's religion and politics are private matters. I
simply want to be permitted to sit quietly and read about anarchism, animal
rights issues and environmental matters, to enjoy freedom of thought. I simply
want to be able to communicate with like-minded people. If I engage in criminal
activity via the mail, I see nothing wrong with law enforcement authorities
prosecuting me. However, I don't wish to be persecuted nor punished due to my
politics by having my incoming mail withheld due to a ridiculous fear of
political ideology.
Obscene
Publication Issue
Should
Thompson v.
"Publishers-Only"
Rule
Tennessee
DoC's mail policy contains a "publishers only" restriction on receipt
of public?cations which stipulates that no individual or family member may send
any kind of publication to an inmate. All publications must be sent directly
from the publisher or in the policy's words, "a recognized
distributor." No provision is made for receipt of used books or for items
sent by small not-for-profit distributors, self-publishers, or prisoner book
services. A
In
our daily lives, what do we do when we encounter fundamentally unfair or unjust
situa?tions perpetrated against citizens by government at any level? We
sometimes speak out against them. Sometimes the little self-serving message of
government to us goes through our minds, reminding us that we cannot fight city
hall and win. More often than not, we sadly shake our heads in disgust and
symbolic defeat, catalog the situation as another government abuse we can do
nothing about, and go on with the affairs of our lives. In this situation,
though, one must realize that often usurping consti?tutional rights of citizens
at large begins with acts against the defenseless, minorities, homeless,
prisoners, disenfranchised. If government seizures of constitutional rights are
not noticed and not strongly contested, then the citizens at large have
legitimized the government's acts, which often creates a progression of lost
rights and constitutional guarantees. If society stands for the chipping
away
of rights of those at its fringes without an outcry, then it is only a matter of
time until the rights of those at the heart of society are adversely impacted.
Government concedes nothing once taken, gives nothing back, and restores nothing
seized to its original state of being.
I
ask you to ask yourselves if you wish government to decide what you can read? To
deter?mine what political ideology you can embrace? To decide what you can
watch? What is obscene and what is not? Take the first step to protect your own
constitutional rights by declaring that Tennessee DoC's mail policy is violative
of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, one of the most
admired documents in the world,. Protect your right to embrace a political
theory, a political ideology, of your choice by protecting my rights, under the
Constitution, to the same thing. There is a barrier between society and me as a
convicted felon, a razor-wire-topped barrier. I ask here today that you not aid
the government in creating a barrier between me, a prisoner, and the
Constitution of the
If
we are a nation of laws, then hold me to that standard, the same standard you
live by, and nothing less. I ask only that the same standard be applied to me
which applies to you and which governs how you conduct your life. I ask that you
do not permit the taking of my rights here today by government until I have
violated that standard, until I have broken the law. In this nation it was once
decreed that due to the hue of a person's skin, that person had no rights,
protections or guarantees under the Constitution. This was said to the people by
the government. This nation evolved past such barbaric practices as slavery
except in its prisons, with involuntary servitude. In a prison environment,
prisoners are told when to eat, shower, sleep, get up, work, and go outside to
recreation-if they are even permitted outside rec. You may talk but you'd better
watch what you say and not talk too loud, or you can be charged with creating a
disturbance. Everything in a penal setting is regulated, which is understandable
to retain control and maintain order. Everything but thought is controlled, and
this mail police of the Tennessee DoC is clearly, blatantly designed to achieve
the goal of Orwellian "1984" thought control, to turn prisons into
political reeducation camps following the defunct Soviet and Chinese examples.
Sound absurd? No! The mail policy contested attempts to regulate thought,
restrict and chill access to ideas, and set a standard that the First Amendment
of the Constitution does not apply to prisoners when it comes to restricting
politics abrasive to prison officials and opinions critical of government.
I
am sincerely sorry prison officials have such delicate
feelings and personas that they can be grievously injured by criticism
contained in any printed word. Nevertheless, I ask you to protect your rights
and mine by sending government in general and Tenn. DoC in particular the
message that you believe the Constitution
of the United States was meant to establish, protect and guarantee the
rights of all-prisoner and free citizen alike-and especially from government's
unnecessary seizure of those rights. Vote your conscience. Thank you.