There has been some predicable and understandable objections to the selection of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted killer of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981, as this year’s commencement speaker for Goddard College in Vermont. Faulkner’s widow and others have decried his recorded appearance from Mahanoy state prison in Frackville, Pennsylvania. However, as is all too often the case, politicians have responded to such good-faith objections with a highly questionable, poorly crafted law that allows victims to seek injunctions in future such cases.
Goddard College recognized Abu-Jamal as “an award winning journalist who chronicles the human condition.”
He addressed about 20 students receiving bachelor degrees from Goddard College in Plainfield, where he himself earned a degree from the college in 1996. He told them to
“Think about the myriad of problems that beset this land and strive to make it better.” While he did not discuss his crime, he such “Goddard reawakened in me my love of learning,. In my mind, I left death row.”
Abu-Jamal was a member of the Black Panther Party. He later became a radio journalist and president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists. On December 9, 1981, Officer Faulkner was shot dead while conducting a traffic stop on a car driven by Abu-Jamal’s brother, William Cook. Faulkner shot Abu-Jamal in the encounter. The case became a national focus not only because of the death of a police officer but the later errors claimed in association with Abu-Jamal, who initially represented himself with disastrous results.
Abu-Jamal has become a symbol for some who view his cases as the product of racism and prosecutorial abuse. He has become a prison journalist and international figure. In the process, he has appeared before academic audiences in both writings and taped speeches. In 1999, he gave a keynote address for the graduating class at The Evergreen State College and, in 2000, he recorded a commencement address for Antioch College. He received an honorary degree “for his struggle to resist the death penalty” from the now defunct New College of California School of Law. In 1991, Abu-Jamal even published an essay in the Yale Law Journal, on the death penalty and his death row experience.
He has also appeared in national media. In May 1994, National Public Radio’s All Things Considered program enlisted Abu-Jamal to deliver a series of monthly three-minute commentaries on crime and punishment. NPR later backed down after protests and Abu-Jamal sued NPR for not airing his work. (The lawsuit was dismissed).
His publications include Death Blossoms: Reflections from a Prisoner of Conscience; All Things Censored; Live From Death Row, and We Want Freedom: A Life in the Black Panther Party.
He was born Wesley Cook and was sentenced to death but his sentence was later reduced to life in prison without parole for killing Faulkner.
The new bill has been approved by a Pennsylvania House committee and would allow a victim to go to court for an injunction against “conduct which perpetuates the continuing effects of the crime on the victim.” It defines the conduct at issue as that which “causes a temporary or permanent state of mental anguish.” It would allow victims or prosecutors to ask for injunctions “or other appropriate relief.”
The bill in my view raises serious first amendment and other constitutional concerns. It is also dangerously vague and ambiguous. While I understand the outrage by many, the law would allow the curtailment of protected speech. History is replete with prisoners who have acquired educations during their incarceration and established themselves as writers or activists. Colleges and universities have also incorporated such voices into classes and events for decades. Universities are bastions of free speech where opposing (and at times even offensive) views are heard as part of an open forum. Just as Abu-Jamal was given a right to speak, his critics have been heard clearly in denouncing his selection. There are good reasons to question his selection, but the choice rests with the college and the students.
The bill is designed presumably to stop future such speeches, but to do so would curtail both academic freedom and free speech. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship disguised as a victim’s rights bill. I have a huge amount of sympathy of Mrs. Faulkner and I understand the anger over the selection. However, this sweeping bill is not the solution. The solution is more not less speech. That is precisely what has happened. The national media has covered the controversy and many agree with the objections to the selection of Abu-Jamal.
While sponsor State Representative Todd Stephens insists that this legislation is about giving victim’s voice,” the victim already has a voice under the protections of the first amendment. The hundreds of articles hearing her voice is a testament to that system. Stephens appears most outraged not by any silencing of the victim but that fact that Abu-Jamal was heard: “I think it’s absolutely think it’s disgusting that this cop killer would be afforded an opportunity to address college students, frankly.” That is fine. Stephens has every right to be heard. What he does not have a right to do is to legislatively seek a way to silence the voices or prevent the choices of others in such presentations.
Current laws allow anyone to seek an injunction to prevent harm from the actions of others. However, such injunctions tend to fail when the harmful act is the exercise of free speech. Indeed, in 2011, the Court ruled 8-1 in Snyder v. Phelps, that tort laws cannot be used to enjoin or punish public speech, even speech widely viewed as “outrageous”. That speech involved the despicable protest by the Westboro Church of the funeral of U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder (who was killed in Iraq).
Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall cogently explained in Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972):
[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. [Citations.] To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.
Most of the comments on this thread entirely miss the point. The proposed law is blatantly unconstitutional.
I’m by no means a lawyer here, but why does a convicted killer still have free speech? Didn’t he give that up when he pulled the trigger? What is truly sad is that the idiot college and the idiots who attend it would want this human waste to speak.
Nick, My radar went off when I read that part too.
Cop shot him in the car? Sounds like Ferguson. Y’all have heard about that town decried by the media as a Ghetto Town? It is somewhere out in Missoura. They don’t know nuthin bout birthin out there. They let some cop shoot a fleeing felon who attacked the cop during flight. But the fleeing punk was only 18 so the media descended upon Ferguson and want the cop prosecuted and sent to jail. If he goes to jail then I will want him at my God Dog’s commencement.
leej, Refreshing we can agree. It is a horrible choice. But, it is their choice and the Constitution protects it.
“Universities are bastions of free speech.” REALLY, JT. REALLY! I think this shitbird should be allowed to speak. But so should the MANY conservative speakers who have been blocked by left wing Nazi universities. Need I list the offenses. TheFire.org is the best website for showing universities are no longer the bastions of free speech they once were. They are the antithesis of that. You have done posts showing that universities are bastions of LIBERAL speech only. Maybe you’re focused on your trip because I know you don’t believe that.
JT – if you think universities and colleges are bastions of free speech to need to go to your colleague’s site Legal Insurrection or College Insurrection. What colleges and universities have done to free speech is horrifying.
The question though isn’t the opinion on the content, that’s exactly what a less than content neutral restriction is. Whether you think this guy was a poor choice, or whether he was framed. Neither position is of any consequences with respect to the speech itself. Its PARTICULARLY these cases where the speaker may not be popular that we actually should be DOUBLY vigilant with respect to speech. It is our tradition, its a good one and ultimately one can only hope that the marketplace of ideas will prevail.
“Mumia didn’t kill Faulkner. He was convicted by racism.”
SMH
“For those who do not know the basic facts, here is a brief synopsis. At roughly 3:50 a.m. on December 9, 1981, Officer Daniel Faulkner stopped the car of William Cook on a street in Philadelphia. Cook is the brother of Abu-Jamal. Coincidently, Abu-Jamal was parked nearby in a taxi he was driving. Upon seeing an altercation between Faulkner and Cook, Abu-Jamal ran across the street and shot Faulkner in the back. Faulkner was able to get a shot off at Abu-Jamal, seriously wounding him. With the wounded Faulkner on the ground, Abu-Jamal shot him in the head, killing him instantly.
At the time there were only three people in the immediate area of the crime: Faulkner, Abu-Jamal, and Cook. But others were nearby. Within minutes there were statements taken by separate police officers from several different witnesses who identified Abu-Jamal as the shooter. There were only two guns on the scene, Faulkner’s and Abu-Jamal’s. Ballistics show that the bullet in Abu-Jamal came from Faulkner’s gun, and that those in Faulkner came from a gun like Abu-Jamal’s. In the presence of a hospital security guard, Abu-Jamal shouted “I shot the m__f__r, and I hope the m__f__r dies.”
It did not take much deliberation for the jury to convict Abu-Jamal, and he was sentenced by the jury to death on July 3, 1982. His conviction for the crime has withstood the seemingly endless appeals, post-conviction hearings, and massive publicity campaign.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/mumia_abujamal_still_guilty.html
Reminds me of “The Hurricane” who was falsely convicted via racism posing as justice.
Mumia didn’t kill Faulkner. He was convicted by racism. He was an outspoken journalist documenting the rabid racism in Philly. He had to be stopped. Instead, he has become known around the world as a political prisoner. Racism is alive and well. The loss of her husband was tragic but it’s about time Faulkner’s widow moves on. Goddard may be small but it has an excellent curriculum. Mumia, as an alum, was an excellent choice as speaker.
bettykath – I do not want to be too technical here but a jury of his peers convicted him. He has had numerous unsuccessful appeals. If he were white he would have no support at all.
Only a completely deluded political hack could believe this murderer is innocent. The evidence is so overwhelming is a farce to believe that he is innocent. Just because you are a public figure does not mean you cannot commit crimes. This is NO possible way similar to hurricane Carter who was framed with so called eye witness testimony.
Paul to me even the garbage collector would have been a better choice. Unless they wanted to show how the degree can be meaningless when your life choice is to murder.
Indeed the speech absolutely is protected. In giving the interview the state can only make rational restrictions based on legitimate penological interests.
How this man has become a symbol of anything is beyond me. Occupy Phila took up his cause. lost me then and I suspect a lot of other folks as well. This murderer has his rights but what is wrong with Goddard that they go to the bottom of the barrel, and below, to find a speaker.
leejcaroll – when you only have 50 graduates you cannot be too picky. However, the mayor of the town would have been a better pick.
Yes, a prisoner has fewer rights than other persons. However, here a prisoner was permitted to make a recorded speech, which was transmitted outside the prison. That recorded speech should have all First Amendment protections once outside the prison irrespective of the sensitivities of some people. If there would be any restriction on prisoner speech, that should occur in the prison and not with respect to hearing that speech outside.
The First Amendment can’t be molded to fit the viewpoint of some, can it? Incarcerated people haven’t lost that right, do they, unless some get away with using our legal system to do so. If Phelps church protesters couldn’t be shut up from spewing their filth at soldiers funerals, this guy Abu-Jamal’s message shouldn’t be silenced either and his message could actually inspire the graduates to do some good for their fellow man.
I would think that the prison would restrict his abilty to speak at the commencement. I think his selection as a graduation speaker is horrible in the extreme. Whoever made the selection should be looking for a new job. I do not support the new law. These laws never work out. Still you would have to convince a judge you were right. It could be fun at some at the Universities given the speakers panels.
Usually I agree with Prof Turley, but as a prisoner you lose certain rights. So it is not outlandish to limit access to media or public venues when one is a prisoner. Think that a prison has the right to limit the number of letters one can get or send? I do agree that the law is poorly crafted and should be limited to the actions of the prison officials.
Knee jerk laws are usually problematic. It is more for political reasons these are passed than a well though out plan to address an actual need.