• Pronell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    There’s no punishment, they’re telling him that if he wants early release and intends to perform, that the content of his performance be reviewed ahead of time.

    Because he would never have been able to have that performance AT ALL if still incarcerated.

    He is asking for early release and it is being granted with certain restrictions.

    People on probation get sent back when they break laws, violating the terms of that probation. This guy hasn’t gotten to probation yet and is more restricted.

    I see your point though, and it would be double jeopardy if they fully released him while continuing to punish him in other ways. That just isn’t what’s happening here. He’s trying to get out early.

    • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Personally I dont see the difference. (I do see the difference between probation and supervised release now). It essentially claims a prisoner (incarcerated or on supervised release) has no freedom of speech.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Right or wrong, the whole point of incarceration is removing freedoms as punitive punishment for committing crimes.

        Probation, supervised release, it’s not the same as having served the sentence (and therefore gaining most rights back,). For example, a pedophile is probably going to never be allowed to work around kids and doing so on probation or sup. release is going to see them sent back into jail.

        • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s wrong. Incarceration doesn’t mean you lose your citizenship and citizens of the US are still entitled to basic rights such as speech. Prisoners supposedly have rights that protect them from the state.

          We should all be more upset about this

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Prisoners have rights? As the last constitutionally protected form of slaves?

            And yes. It’s wrong.

            I just think if we solve the larger problem this won’t be an issue.

            • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Prisoners still have the rights of the 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments. They are many cases of prisoners successfully sueing for having those rights violated.

              We shouldn’t act like they don’t exist simply because some of the powers that be want to pretend they don’t