Sketch of Ben Gunn drawn by a fellow prisonerYesterday my feelings were hurt, I felt as though I had been stabbed in the back, and I am still sore about it now. Free Ben's Blog from being silenced, having campaigned for Ben Gunn's right to freedom of expression, and having succeeded, the blow struck was below the belt when I discovered that a comment I had left on Ben's Prison Blog was censored by being deleted. I had gone back to see if anybody had responded to my comment. The only response was the denial of my freedom of expression.
My comment was in response to one left by wigarse, and as he/she had attacked my first comment it was a write to reply. However, it was decided that I had no right to reply by the deleter of my comment. It was not abusive or insulting, and this is why it hurt most of all. I must have touched a raw nerve.
My first comment was close to the bone, and either it was missed initially, or because there had already been responses and it would be obvious if it suddenly got deleted, it remains for the world to see. It is a pity that the Google screengrab only registered the 19th and 21st, and the comment was posted on the 20th, so the Google cache does not contain the comment so it cannot be retrieved. More's the pity because I would have reposted it, and added an explanation what had happened to it the first time around.
There is something disingenuous about posting a headline entitled "My crime", and saying this:
"One of the criticisms I have of many prison writers is that they avoid any mention of their crime.
One day they are bumbling along through normal existence, the next they are sentenced to life. A few decades pass and a book deal later, and we can still be no wiser as to what they did.
It may be harsh, but I've viewed this as a mixture of cowardice and deceit. Parading oneself out in public and becoming accepted, whilst keeping the crime secret, always makes me uncomfortable, although I do realise that it may be sensible. This is not to say that these prison writers do not make a very valuable contribution to public debate".
He is not speaking about me, but I think I know who he is referring to. In any event, to view others as being cowards and deceitful when Ben himself has so far avoided going into the detail of his crime is rank hypocrisy. Ben says he killed his friend when he was 14, and that's it. Sorry, did I miss something? The devil is in the detail. If I was on the Parole Board and he faced me, and all of this is missing from him, how could I honestly make a risk assessment low enough to recommend his release on the general public? I have sympathy for him, but without addressing his offending behaviour sympathy is not enough.
With me I was honest and thought about if I could not convince myself how can I expect to convince others I was a minimum risk for release? I know a case of a man who set fire to a farmer's barn, was sentenced to life imprisonment, after 20 years he was released by the Parole Board, and once again set fire to the same farmer's barn! And, another lifer convicted of murder who got me removed from an outside work party, at a resettlement prison, and when he was released he committed another murder!
I have refrained from joining Ben's Facebook campaign to be released. I asked myself do I know he is safe? I had to be honest and say no I didn't. So, I couldn't sign on the dotted line. I might have been signing someone's death warrant.
The deletion of a comment does not mean that Ben is not safe enough for release. That is a matter for the Parole Board to decide in its own way. But, the missing piece of the jig-saw puzzle fails to complete the picture shown on the box. And for me, "Assassination is the extreme form of censorship" (George Bernard Shaw). Or, censorship kills words.
"Throughout the history of mankind, a portion of the population have felt the need to remove or suppress material that they consider to be morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable, such as books, films, or other materials. Censorship can be dated back to ancient Greek and Roman times. Some of the works of art and literature that were considered taboo a long time ago, are widely available in modern day life. William Shakespeare, Michelangelo, John Lennon, Diego Rivera, and the Venus de Milo were all thought to be morally wrong or offensive at one time or another. In the twentieth century, censorship has gone to more extreme measures by involving the government and legal system. Many artists take for granted the freedom to create art. Most do not understand or appreciate this freedom until it is taken from them. Fortunately, this freedom is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" (1). The 14th Amendment makes the protections of the First Amendment applicable to state laws. Almost any attempt to regulate written or spoken word can be scrutinized by the courts to assure that it does".
"Life is not censored and books shouldn't be either" (in the comments). In the modern world neither should blogs be censored.
2 comments:
Hello, made my way here via the post from which your second comment was removed. I still don't understand why it was. Do you know the moderator so that you can ask them? I had thought that you were the one posting Ben's articles. I've been reading Ben's blog almost from the beginning and although I thought he sounded like a reasonable person from the start, I refrained from commenting lest I was being conned by an arch manipulator of the most intelligent kind! I feel I hear a voice of sincerity with a heavy dose of remorse from Ben, so I do hope for his release. I also hope I am not wildly wrong in my assessment which after all is based purely on his own writing. I am so suprised that your comment was removed and now I am wondering who the mysterious editor/s is/are.
My misgivings too, just now, syncopated eyeball.
Post a Comment