South Carolina Says It's A Felony For Prisoners To Look At Facebook; Sends Many To Solitary Confinement
from the felony-facebooking dept
Dave Maass, over at EFF, has an absolutely insane story about how the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) added a special new level 1 felony charge (for reference: murder, rape, rioting and hostage-taking are all level 1 felonies) for... using a social network while in prison. Yes, these individuals are already prisoners, but this draconian law and even more draconian enforcement means that hundreds of South Carolina prisons are facing extended sentences and long stays in solitary confinement for... posting to their Facebook page. And that's not an exaggeration:Why so harsh? The SCDC says that it's a separate felony for each day that an inmate uses a social media site (oddly, you can do as much as you want in a single day and it's just a single felony -- but new day, new felony). And, of course, "social media" is defined broadly as well:In October 2013, Tyheem Henry received 13,680 days (37.5 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 27,360 days (74 years) worth of telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 69 days of good time—all for 38 posts on Facebook. In June 2014, Walter Brown received 12,600 days (34.5 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 25,200 days (69 years) in telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 875 days (2.4 years) of good time—all for 35 posts on Facebook. In May 2014, Jonathan McClain received 9,000 days (24.6 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 18,000 days (49 years) in telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 30 days of good time—all for 25 posts on Facebook.
There's a lot more to Maass's article, and it's well worth reading. He also takes Facebook to task for helping the SCDC takedown prisoners' Facebook profiles. Facebook has set up an easy form, which can lead to widespread abuse, and it doesn't appear that Facebook does much, if anything, to check to see if the accounts actually abuse the company's terms of service. There are lots of problems with the criminal justice and prison systems in the US, and there may be legitimate reasons to limit access to social media for prisoners (though that seems like a stretch in many cases). But to make it an additional felony and to lock up people for years because of it? How is that not cruel and unusual punishment?South Carolina adopted a Level 1 social media offense [PDF] to punish “Creating and/or Assisting With A Social Networking Site,” defined as: “The facilitation, conspiracy, aiding, abetting in the creation or updating of an Internet web site or social networking site.”
SCDC defines “social networking” very broadly, covering everything from YouTube and Twitter to blogs and email, although all of the cases EFF reviewed [PDF] involved Facebook. Investigations are conducted by corrections officers and inmates are convicted during disciplinary hearings that often last mere minutes.
Since the policy was implemented, SCDC has brought 432 disciplinary cases against 397 inmates, with more than 40 inmates receiving more than two years in solitary confinement [PDF].
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: felony, scdc, social media, solitary confinement, south carolina, south carolina department of corrections
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Putting it in perspective
To quote the EFF on this:"In other words, if a South Carolina inmate caused a riot, took three hostages, murdered them, stole their clothes, and then escaped, he could still wind up with fewer Level 1 offenses than an inmate who updated Facebook every day for two weeks."
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This must be what goes on in the minds of South Carolina politicians/wardens:
You know, we need to keep these prisoners from communicating to outside criminals and I have the perfect solution! Give them access to the Internet but if they post anything we just lock them up longer! That punishment will deter this undesired behaviour!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This story reminds me so much of a Family Guy episode a few years ago. In the episode Peter and his friends go on a road trip somewhere in the South, and corrupt cops arrest them on bogus charges. And then kept extending their 30 day prison sentence indefinitely because they didn't want to let anyone ever leave prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about simply just locking it and putting some bars over the profile picture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
External communications
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: External communications
Prisons don't supply cell phones, that's how it's different. Simples!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: External communications
Probably because the guards are on the same network. Subnets? What're those?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: External communications
Inmates use smuggled cellphones to access Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: External communications
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When sadists run the prisons
Allowing prisoners access to the internet, and then hitting them with felony level punishments for using it 'wrong', with 'wrong' in this case being 'How the vast majority of people online use it', is absolutely insane, and not even remotely reasonable or fair.
Another indicator that the policy is simply to screw with the lives of the prisoners and watch them suffer is this: If interacting with sites like Facebook is grounds for a felony, then why can the prisoners access it at all? Why isn't it completely blocked, such that they couldn't access it on the prison's network, rather than accessible, but with a massive cudgel poised over the head of anyone who goes to the site?
If posting to social media is going to be treated as a felony, this horrible crime that deserves decades of prison time, the only possible reason it could even be possible to access any sites that would qualify under the policy as a 'social media site' is if they want the prisoners to go to those sites, just so they can slam them with extra prison time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When sadists run the prisons
I can pretty much guarantee that the universal get-out clause for idiots who are too scared/lazy to think about their actions: "Zero tolerance" will get bandied about soon....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this necessary?
Why not, ummmmmm, just block Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this necessary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this necessary?
And I want Facebookers to go to prison so they can add a bit of punctuation to their sentences.
Tough. This is not the Make a Wish Foundation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is this necessary?
I don't know how else to put this: you, sir, are a fucking jackass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly what I was thinking. If the crime rate is falling, they need to keep their existing inmates in longer in order to remain profitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Especially "... or updating of an Internet web site ..." - doesn't any search on Google update Google's site (search terms, frequency)? So, it's not just the social networks. Why don't they just pull the plug on the Internet access?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Putting it in perspective
"In other words, if a South Carolina inmate caused a riot, took three hostages, murdered them, stole their clothes, and then escaped, he could still wind up with fewer Level 1 offenses than an inmate who updated Facebook every day for two weeks."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to use the Internetz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know much about the subject, but it would seem to me that locking someone up in a room, food twice a day, no need to let them out for exercise, could save someone quite a bit of cash....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is NO reason not to simply block Facebook and other sites from the network and lock down the computers. It is quite easy and so I blame the prison staff for luring prisoners to breaking the rules.
Sure, the inmates maybe deserve a small slap on the wrist, but if you put your food in front of a starving man, you can make almost anyone a thief.
In no way do I condone the crimes these people committed and they absolutely belong behind bars, but this is just cruel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Uh, cuz the staff use those same computers too. That's the obvious implication, can't deprive the staff of their perks. In fact, now we think about it, how do we know malicious staff didn't impersonate...... If you're a prisoner, how do you prove you didn't use a computer when they say you must have, they keep the records and they keep any video footage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let me give you an example: in our production environment the computers don't need access to the internet and it is unsafe, so we can block that 4 different ways.
1. Block the network the computers are on.
2. Block the computers themselves, either at the border to the internet or in said directory.
3. Block the user that is logged on, so that other approved users who logs in on that computer will have access.
4. Packet inspection where you check the data for who the intended receiver is or what kind of data is sent.
I assure you that this is quite common and a simple task for most IT administrators. It is as easy to block specific sites, except you need to have a list of those sites, which can be found on the internet.
So even if the staff were to use these computers (Wouldn't they have their own?) they could have access to every site, while the next prisoner to log on wouldn't be able to post a photo of the prisonfood to instagram.
There is no reason why they aren't doing this in the simplest of ways.
It is so dumb that it has to be on purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Entrapment anyone?
The worst part is, what if it's not the prisoner actually posting to facebook, but one of those many sites that integrate into the facebook API?
"I'm sorry mr warden, but i was just playing "Super Burger Diner v2.0", and it posted automagically on my profile when i reached the "YouAreTheBurgerBaron" Level. How was i to know that my high score was the last 5 digits of a phone number?"
The US Prison system is going mental even...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do the guards also have this same restriction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do the guards also have this same restriction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do the guards also have this same restriction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do the guards also have this same restriction
I don't agree with the way this has been implemented, but it's asinine to suggest that guards and judges should have to live under the same rules and restrictions as prison inmates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is letting them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another problem with excessive sentences - nothing left to lose
It's the same problem you have with excessive initial sentences. If the penalty for robbery is death, and the penalty for murder is death, why should a robber not kill his victim, eliminating a witness and potentially increasing his chances of getting away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another problem with excessive sentences - nothing left to lose
Because the robber has a conscience, and knows that murder is worse than robbery, no matter what the law says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another problem with excessive sentences - nothing left to lose
Not in my area; you're lucky if the sentence is 10 years or more per charge.
(Though if it were proposed I'd support it; say as part of a '3 strikes' law.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Missing Point
That, to me, is the larger issue here. This action is simply overkill if you're simply trying to keep inmates from running criminal enterprises or intimidating witnesses from behind bars, as there are already laws against those actions. Laws which, if convicted of violating, will actually increase an inmate's prison sentence unlike these penalties, many of which are slated to run longer than the inmate is even imprisoned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Missing Point
'FELONY! Extra time for you!'
How is that NOT a first amendment issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, I wouldn't object to sentencing these prisons, but it is more likely that you misspelled prisoners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They could be victims of the war on drugs, or even people falsely convicted. been quite the scandal about that lately. Where it has come out DE's intentionally lied to keep their conviction record high.
No doubt some are murderers but silly to assume they all are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The world is filled with billionaires, etc.
The human body is composed of earlobes, etc.
Great literature uses the word 'is', etc.
Nations of the world include Estonia, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."
Sorry about the way things turned out Abe, and please stop rolling over in your grave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can't expect the courts to keep them there after it comes out the DE committed perjury to keep his ratings up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huge editorial mistake in this article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huge editorial mistake in this article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]