2 ms·
I’m not convinced this is a free speech violation. He’s on parole - meaning the government has the legal right to put him back in prison basically at any moment
by gjsman-1000 2y ago
I’m not convinced this is a free speech violation. He’s on parole - meaning the government has the legal right to put him back in prison basically at any moment. There’s no free speech in a prison (edit: officially yes, in practice, it doesn’t matter much).
Supervised release also comes with all sorts of restrictions, including in some cases: No internet use, no contact with minors, no alcohol, mandatory check-ins, random searches, approved locations only, curfew at night, no leaving the country, no knowing association with other felons. This is hardly novel by comparison.
- Laaas 2y agoSince when is there not free speech in a prison?
- gjsman-1000 2y agoOfficially, it exists; in practice, behavior is so regulated it’s not worth much. My point is that it’s more of an “on paper” free speech in comparison to a non-incarcerated individual.
- aeadio 2y agoThey don't seem to be attempting to prevent him from publishing his music. They will just revoke parole if he violates their terms. They're not suppressing speech. They're giving him supervised release on condition.
- coldtea 2y agoSince they can put you in solitary confinement or beat you up for speaking
- yakito 2y agoIn one way or another, we are all being supervised, even without having committed a crime. It is true that there is a thin line between supervision and the violation of rights, but I believe this requires deeper analysis. However, the fact that supervision exists should not surprise us at a time in history when individuals are more supervised than ever before. If in this case the supervision were a possible violation of his freedom of expression, then thousands of similar situations constantly occur with people’s freedom to move freely among other examples.