Everyone should take a deep breath and think about three little words with a sacred meaning:
First Amendment Rights
Granted, a sheriff or prison official may be viewed by some as a last line of defense against unpopular defendants seizing an opportunity to spew their nonsense to the media. But do we really want to give someone, at that level of government, the power to infringe on any prisoner's constitutional rights? I don't believe we do. I'm no Arias hugger, but I'm with Arpaio on this one. Here's why:
- Dozens of media outlets were petitioning the jail to interview Arias. It's their job to report the news and Arias is news.
- There appears to be no law prohibiting county prisoners from speaking to the media prior to sentencing.
- It was Judge Stephens who lifted the media ban earlier imposed on Arias.
- We can only assume the attorneys representing Arias, Nurmi and Willmott, did not oppose lifting the ban -- in at least one interview, Arias indicated her attorneys were aware, this time, of her intent to give the interviews and did not forbid her from doing so.
- Arias wanted to speak and had a First Amendment right to do so.
- Arias was given total control over which media outlets she would and would not speak with.
- Arias was free to choose which questions she would and would not answer.
Let's be fair and honest. In the chain of blame, if blame must be assigned at all, it's (first) Arias, (second) Nurmi and Willmott, (third) Judge Stephens, (fourth) Arizona lawmakers and (fifth) the media. As a county servant, Sheriff Arpaio's role simply isn't a factor. He did his job by forwarding the media requests to Arias and by making her available for the interviews she chose to give.
No comments:
Post a Comment