4 ms·

> family members and attorneys in touch with SAMs prisoners can be prosecuted and incarcerated for repeating anything the inmate told them This is interesting

> family members and attorneys in touch with SAMs prisoners can be prosecuted and incarcerated for repeating anything the inmate told them This is interesting and I'd be very curious to know what the courts have made of this kind of prior restraint. I'm not skeptical that threats of this nature have been made, but I am skeptical that such a prosecution could actually be brought- under what statute? Lawyers may be gagged somewhat, as an officer of the court, but a family member seems like a real stretch. Edit to add: here's a simple explainer on SAMs and what they do: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/10/SAMs%20Report.summary_0.pdf https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/10/SA... > Prisoners under SAMs are prohibited from communicating with anyone except a few pre-approved individuals – their attorneys and immediate family members – and SAMs prohibit those individuals from repeating the prisoner’s words to anyone else. I am still awfully curious as to what possible statutory authority the DoJ could have to regulate the speech of people who aren't actually incarcerated.

DuskStar 7y ago
I imagine that it isn't actually prior restraint in the classic sense, but instead in the form of an agreement that the lawyers and family members have to sign before talking to the prisoners in question.
- mirimir 7y ago
  Yes, I suspect that they're non-disclosure agreements. So violating them puts one in contempt of court. And punishments for contempt are whatever judges say they are.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    See, that would make a least some sense. But apparently "The U.S. Attorney General has sole discretion to impose SAMs". With court imposed gag orders there's a court order from a judge. These things seem to be administrative decisions about detention conditions (the same way prisons can regulate the books prisoners can have, etc). But if so, they wouldn't ordinarily regulate the speech of people not actually in jail. I think the worst they'd be able to do is ban that person from visiting again, not actually prosecute them. How can you be in contempt of court if SAMs are at the sole discretion of the AG?
    - mirimir 7y ago
      I guess that the US AG has that power. Or maybe some tame judges. I suppose that it could go to the Supreme Court. However, many cases have been quashed, based on national security grounds. For criminal cases, charges against suspects have been dropped. But about SAMs, that would likely leave the status unchanged. IANAL, though.

DuskStar 7y ago

I imagine that it isn't actually prior restraint in the classic sense, but instead in the form of an agreement that the lawyers and family members have to sign before talking to the prisoners in question.

mirimir 7y ago
Yes, I suspect that they're non-disclosure agreements. So violating them puts one in contempt of court. And punishments for contempt are whatever judges say they are.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  See, that would make a least some sense. But apparently "The U.S. Attorney General has sole discretion to impose SAMs". With court imposed gag orders there's a court order from a judge. These things seem to be administrative decisions about detention conditions (the same way prisons can regulate the books prisoners can have, etc). But if so, they wouldn't ordinarily regulate the speech of people not actually in jail. I think the worst they'd be able to do is ban that person from visiting again, not actually prosecute them. How can you be in contempt of court if SAMs are at the sole discretion of the AG?
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I guess that the US AG has that power. Or maybe some tame judges. I suppose that it could go to the Supreme Court. However, many cases have been quashed, based on national security grounds. For criminal cases, charges against suspects have been dropped. But about SAMs, that would likely leave the status unchanged. IANAL, though.