Is Freedom of Speech/Expression denied to Criminals?
The definition of a criminal is set out by the society in which one lives: if person is found guilty of a crime or is fined by a court of law for any misdemeanour he is a criminal, and loses a lot of his freedoms, including the freedom to interact with the civilised society of non-criminals. In the prison he can say whatever he likes to himself or other prisoners and the wardens but his letters to the wider society must be heavily censored as a punishment, a deterrant, and to protect society from the criminals views. In the same way those guilty of lesser crimes and who stay out of prison may or may not lose privileges depending on what the court decides.
Would the terrorists locked up in USA and elsewhere be given the right to continue to preach their hatred of Americans and westerners as well as infidels? Should paedophiles be allowed to preach underage sex? Should they not be prevented from writing their vile filth and issuing it to society through letters and internet facilities in order to prevent the recruitment of more terrorists and paedophiles. The court should decide in each criminal case what level of freedom the criminals will enjoy whilst they are serving prison terms or if not sent to prison how what they can say against whom in society. Those who are found guilty of slander and libel will be told that they cannot go on uttering that kind of stuff or they will be found to be in contempt of court and face a prison term. These restrictions are required to protect innocent people's reputation and hence livelihood being damaged by malicious slander and libel and also protect the society from being misinformed and brainwashed once a court has made a decision on the legitimacy of the comment that is passed and tested in court for slander/libel.
Blasphemy means stating what is not true as being true. Thus, religious blasphemy must be forced into the courtroom for a judge to consider whether certain religions are to be protected under secularism.
Comments