linksunten Archiv

Die Verweigerung der notwendigen medizinischen Behandlung Abu-Jamals, so Washington, ereigne sich »zu einer Zeit, in der das gnadenlose Vorgehen der US-Polizei mittels Gewalt und Todesschüssen im ganzen Land im Zentrum der Kritik steht«. Abu-Jamal habe sich in seinen im Gefängnis geschriebenen Büchern und Kolumnen genau dazu immer wieder geäußert und »als scharfer Kritiker der Ungleichheit vor der Strafjustiz gezeigt«. Die »von Gefühlskälte und Unmenschlichkeit geprägte Nichtbehandlung seiner Erkrankung« sei dafür gewissermaßen die Strafe. Entsprechend warf Washington die Frage auf, ob die US-amerikanische Öffentlichkeit gerade Zeuge einer »öffentlichen Hinrichtung« wird. Das »Spektakel der staatlichen Tötung« eines weltweit bekannten politischen Gefangenen werde als »langsame Hinrichtung durch seine kalkulierte medizinische Nichtbehandlung« inszeniert.

aus dem Artikel "Stimme der Unterdrückten" (jW, 29.04.2015)

https://www.jungewelt.de/m/2015/04-29/002.php

Am 26. April 2015 wendete sich Mumia direkt an die Soli-Bewegung:

http://www.prisonradio.org/media/audio/mumia/4-26-2015-mumias-message-mo...

Pa.'s Mumia Abu Jamal-inspired 'revictimization' law is 'manifestly unconstitutional,' U.S. judge rules
By Matt Miller | mmiller@pennlive.com
on April 28, 2015 at 6:16 PM

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/04/pas_mumia_abu_jamal-inspired_r.html 

Calling it "manifestly unconstitutional," a federal judge on Tuesday overturned a new state law that proponents said was designed to prevent criminals from "revictimizing" those harmed by their wrongdoing.

In ruling against the Revictimization Relief Act, U.S. Middle District Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner found that the law, enacted last year, is too broad, too vague and blatantly violates the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution.

The act was in large part a reaction to last year's decision by Goddard College in Vermont to invite Mumia Abu Jamal, who was convicted of the 1981 murder of a Philadelphia police officer, to speak at its commencement.

As adopted by the Legislature, the law barred those convicted of, and in some cases accused of, crimes from speaking or acting in ways that would re-traumatize their victims.

Plaintiffs ranging from Jamal to the Pennsylvania Prison Society, Prison Legal News, various media organizations and current and former prisoners challenged the law's legality during a hearing before Conner in Harrisburg last month.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/03/states_new_revictimization_act.html

The attorney general's office defended the act, claiming it was justifiable to prevent criminals from causing their victims more harm.

Conner found the Constitution's First Amendment free speech guarantees trump such concerns, however.

"A past criminal offense does not extinguish the offender's constitutional right to free expression," the judge wrote. "The First Amendment does not evanesce at the prison gate, and its enduring guarantee of freedom of speech subsumes the right to expressive conduct that some may find offensive."

He also found the Revictimization Act to be 'unlawfully proposed, vaguely executed and patently over-broad."

"However well-intentioned in its legislative efforts, the General Assembly fell woefully short of the mark," Conner wrote.

Since former Gov. Tom Corbett signed it last fall, the act has had a "chilling effect" on the free speech of prisoners and on "entities who rely on that speech," he found. He noted, for example, that Free Speech Radio curtailed airing Jamal's weekly commentaries.

The judge also cited comments by the law's supporters that he said clearly show it was "championed primarily as a device for suppressing offender speech."

"The act's sponsor extolled its capacity to silence Abu Jamal in particular," Conner wrote. "And Gov. Corbett commended the Legislature for expeditiously passing a law that quells the 'obscene celebrity' of an 'unrepentant cop killer'."

The judge also blasted the law's "wholesale lack of definition" finding that it doesn't clearly state what kind of speech or actions it forbids. Nor, he found, does it specify "whether reactions to speech will be measured by any objective or subjective standard, or what level of (victim) 'anguish' will suffice" to trigger its enforcement.

"Short of clairvoyance, plaintiffs cannot determine in advance whether or to what extent a particular expression will impact a victim's sensibilities," Conner observed. "The result of these ambiguities is the very self-censorship identified by the (U.S.) Supreme Court as the hazard of vague legislation."
_______________
From the ruling:

V. Conclusion

The First Amendment‟s guarantee of free speech extends to convicted felons whose expressive conduct is ipso facto controversial or offensive. The right to free expression is the shared right to empower and uplift, and to criticize and condemn; to call to action, and to beg restraint; to debate with rancor, and to accede with reticence; to advocate offensively, and to lobby politely. Indeed, the “high purpose” of the foremost amendment is perhaps best displayed through its protection of speech that some find reprehensible. Johnson, 491 U.S. at 408-09 (“[Free speech] may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” (quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949))). The United States Constitution precludes any state enactment that effectively limits expressive conduct when the essential injury is personal affront.13 See Coleman, 335 F. Supp. at 589.

The victims who have suffered at the hands of certain plaintiffs are not without remedies. Victims are free to protest inmate speech through demonstrations, picketing, or public debate. They may publish responsive leaflets and editorials. As Maureen Faulkner did, victims may air their grievances to the press. Indeed, the victims‟ discourse may include expressive conduct that plaintiffs themselves find objectionable. The First Amendment does not evanesce at any gate, and its enduring guarantee of freedom of speech subsumes the right to expressive conduct that some may find offensive.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court

Der gefangene Journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal ist nach 34 Jahren Haft an Diabetes erkrankt. Die Gefängnisbehörde des US Bundesstaates Pennsylvania verweigert ihm medizinische Hilfe und hat ihn seit dem 26. April 2015 komplett von der Außenwelt isoliert.

Mumia Abu-Jamals Leben ist in großer Gefahr.

Pressemitteilung vom Bundesweiten Netzwerk gegen die Todesstrafe, Do. 30. April 2015:

ESKALATION im Fall Mumia ABU-JAMAL
http://www.bring-mumia-home.de/ALERT_ACT_NOW.html

Sonne und Freiheit für alle!

http://de.indymedia.org/sites/default/files/2015/05/11863.jpg

FREE MUMIA - Rundbrief Mai 2015
http://www.mumia-hoerbuch.de/rundbrief.htm#mai15

Inhalt: Mumias Gesundheitskrise und die mörderische Verweigerungshaltung der Gefängnisbehörde - praktische Vorschläge zur Unterstützung - Mumia spricht aus dem SCI Mahanoy Gefängnis - erfolgreiche Klage gegen Gefangenen-Knebel-Gesetz in Pennsylvania

außerdem:

- Termine
- Meldungen aus der Bewegung
- Presse
- Solidarität mit Gefangenen