[Demosthenes]

I think any rational person can see that this article presents a gross abuse of victoms rights. THe article mentions first amendment protections for convicted murderers but #1 what about the victoms right to be alive, and #2 what about the criminals forfeiture of certain rights upon conviction? finally #3 isn't this akin to letting a convicted Pedophile work at a school? I'm sorry but part of this evil bastard's sentance should include the right of the state to prevent him from glorifying his crimes. This is sick, and what's even worse is the lack of action by anyone with the ability to do so.

Killer Taunts Victim's Family on Internet
By JAY REEVES, AP

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (Jan. 13) - Mary Kate Gach thought she had heard the last of Jack Trawick when he went to death row for murdering her daughter in 1992.


"I would do the whole thing again knowing death row was waiting for me."
-Jack Trawick

Instead, Trawick's twisted writings about how he beat, strangled and stabbed Stephanie Gach and killed other women are available to anyone who wants to read them on the Internet. Many of the writings were put there by a one-time pen pal and admirer of Trawick's.

The killer even taunts Mary Kate Gach by name.

"I'm mad as hell," she said. "Those people don't even have a right to speak my name or my child's name. There's got to be a way to keep them from funneling this stuff out of prisons."

Around the country, dozens of U.S. death row inmates have gotten their letters and artwork posted on the Internet, a practice that torments the victims' grieving friends and relatives.

"It's going on all over," said Nancy Ruhe, executive director of Parents of Murdered Children in Cincinnati. "People say to me all the time, `When are these (victims) going to get over it?' They can't."


Talk About It


· Chat

Experts say little can be done about Web sites featuring the writings of killers.

"It's the First Amendment," Ruhe acknowledged.

Typically, material from inmates makes it onto the Internet through an intermediary. Prisoners send letters to people or companies on the outside, where it is then posted online.

Alabama prison officials say it appears Trawick stopped sending out new stories about murder after Gach's mother and others complained last year. But Trawick's old writings are still on the Web, along with gruesome drawings of murdered women.

In one letter posted on the Internet, Trawick reveled in the Gach slaying.

"I would do the whole thing again knowing death row was waiting for me," Trawick, 56, wrote from Holman Prison.

Trawick confessed to kidnapping Gach, 21, from a Birmingham-area shopping mall in 1992. He took her to an isolated area where he beat her with a hammer, strangled her and stabbed her through the heart.

Gach's body was thrown off an embankment, where it was found the next day. Trawick was convicted in 1994, and he was convicted the next year in the slaying of Aileen Pruitt, 27, killed about four months before Gach.

Trawick has yet to exhaust his appeals, and no date for his execution has been set.



AP
Stephanie Gach, in 1992

Gach's mother avoids listening to anything about Trawick. But it hurts her to know Trawick has a worldwide platform for his sadistic prose.

Free-speech protections prevent prison officials from blocking inmates' outgoing mail unless it presents a security risk or involves a crime in progress, said Amy Fettig, an attorney in Washington with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project.

"Certainly I would understand victims being upset, and prison officials have a right to read mail," she said. But "just saying nasty things or having bad opinions is not a crime."

In one test of inmates' rights, a federal judge in May struck down as unconstitutional an Arizona law that made it illegal for state inmates to send out material to be posted on Web sites. The judge ruled the law was not "rationally related to legitimate penological objectives."

In Alabama, Gach and other victims' relatives met with the state prisoner commissioner last year to protest inmate Web sites. Corrections spokesman Brian Corbett said Trawick's mail was screened extra closely for a time, but his writings have reappeared in new postings in recent weeks.

"I'm in shock. I feel like I have been here before," said Stephanie Gach's mother.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040113143709990004

[CrazyPete]

state to prevent him from glorifying his crimes.

I know there are laws against people making money of their crimes, but I thought that included this as well.

Sick indeed!

[Cap]

Well, I don't think it's quite akin to letting a pedophile work at a school, but it certainly is an injustice.


Cap

[Jesse]

If we subscribed to more, hm, aggressive methods of law enforcement they wouldn't be able to write the letters, if you get my drift.

We're so drunk with the ideals of rights.

[Demosthenes]

In this instance Jesse, I couldn't agree more.

And Capn, my point was in allowing this boorish moron to relive the moments of brutality these authorities are allowing him to continue fostering that type of behavior. Perhpas it is more akin to letting a Pedophile jack off to child pornography? Either way these situations are unacceptable.

[briansmith]

You can call him whatever you names you want, however deserving they are, but the First Amendment does permit him to say what he wishes, including telling people about his crimes.

I don't mean to defend what the guy did, of course, and what he's done after the fact, but seriously... he's got the right to talk about it if he wants to. It's sick, yeah, but there isn't an exception in the Bill of Rights for things that are sick or offensive.

[Nox]

You can call him whatever you names you want, however deserving they are, but the First Amendment does permit him to say what he wishes, including telling people about his crimes.

I disagree. We are not talking about Joe-sixpack average citizen. We are talking about an incarcerated convicted felon. Felons loose many rights when convicted ... one of which is privacy of mail.

What you have here is a clear violation of Prison mail regulations.

This FELON does not have the right to have this venom put on the internet.

Nox

[briansmith]

You can call him whatever you names you want, however deserving they are, but the First Amendment does permit him to say what he wishes, including telling people about his crimes.

I disagree. We are not talking about Joe-sixpack average citizen. We are talking about an incarcerated convicted felon. Felons loose many rights when convicted ... one of which is privacy of mail.

What you have here is a clear violation of Prison mail regulations.

This FELON does not have the right to have this venom put on the internet.

Nox

Does his admirer/pen-pal have the right to put this "venom" out on the Internet, though?

[Demosthenes]

As a follow up to this I thought I'd pass on that I contacted Lycos/Angelfire reguarding the website and basically gave them an earful. They removed the site today. So it seems now I am a bit of an activist.

Tsaler- When you commit a crime you loose certain rights period. You can't own guns, you can't vote, and you're not supposed to be able to associate with your crime in any way. This is a gross violation of that third principle. The first amendment in no way allows for a convicted fellon to glorify his crimes. Just as you may not shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. I'm really kind of sorry anyone would try to defend this guy. I read up on him last night...he ain't nice. But whatever.

the text of my email: (Yes I know I was being trite):

www.angelfire.com/oh/yodaspage/trawickart.html

I simply cannot believe that any self-respecting
person would allow this type of content on a
website. No 1st amendment protection nonsense
excuses the effect this type of material has on
the well being of the survivors of this monster.
I am completely disgusted with Angelfire for it's
lack of vision and insensitivity to the victoms
of a man such as this Jack Trawick individual.

I am no activist, nor am I a religious fanatic,
nor am I anything other than a regular guy, but
this just flies in the face of everything that
decent human beings do for one another.

I will personally never take advantage of any
service you offer as long as you support pages
like these.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?
id=20040113143709990004

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Why
don't you tell this poor woman's family about
this monster's 1st amendment rights to her face.

Lycos response:

Thank you for contacting the Lycos Network Abuse Department.

The account you have brought to the attention of the Lycos Network Abuse
Department was found to be in violation of our Terms and Conditions. As
a result, it has been removed from our servers. Thank you for reporting
it to us.

Please note that the creator of this page is in no way directly
associated with the Lycos Network or its web publishing products. We
exercise no editorial control over the content posted by or the actions
of our users. All users are expected to abide by our Terms and
Conditions, which can be found at the following URL:

http://www.lycos.com/lycosinc/legal.html

I hope you find that our prompt response to this situation addresses
your concerns. If you have any questions or find more accounts that
require our attention please feel free to contact us again.

Sincerely,

Sam

So they have heart after all, I never would have thought...

[Tangata]

Heart, maybe, but no personality. lol, that response was boring.
*just kidding

[uglygoat]

i'm pretty sure the pen pal is well within the bounds of the law... unless the site is promoting the killing of women and actively encouraging it.

besides, if the guy signed a confession it's a matter of public record and anyone can look it up, discuss debate it.

i understand where you are coming from demo, and your disdain, but it's the same principle that allows the kkk to hold rallies in the middle of large urban areas.

Free-speech protections prevent prison officials from blocking inmates' outgoing mail unless it presents a security risk or involves a crime in progress, said Amy Fettig, an attorney in Washington with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project

from the article... it would seem that the prisoners do enjoy the right of free speech to the same extent that all citizens do...

[Nox]

Does his admirer/pen-pal have the right to put this "venom" out on the Internet, though?

Once it's out of the joint, yes.

My point was that it never should have made it out of the joint.

i'm pretty sure the pen pal is well within the bounds of the law... unless the site is promoting the killing of women and actively encouraging it.

True.

Free-speech protections prevent prison officials from blocking inmates' outgoing mail unless it presents a security risk or involves a crime in progress, said Amy Fettig, an attorney in Washington with the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project

from the article... it would seem that the prisoners do enjoy the right of free speech to the same extent that all citizens do...

t1,

Don't be so quick to grab onto this. Amy is an ACLU lawyer ... not a Federal judge. I think the courts will decide ... you know the ACLU already has.

Nox

[Demosthenes]

T1- This is not the same thing as the KKK holding a meeting in the town square. This man was convicted of several murders. It is not acceptable for him to send letters from prison which glorify these crimes and taunt the victom's families whether it's through an intermediary or not.

The KKK (at least for purposes of their demonstration) are not convicted criminals. Nor is what they are babbling about necessarily encouraging a crime, though if they advocate lynching then IMO they loose their rights too, So your comparison is not necessarily accurate.

I believe NOX made my point better for me. The fact that this moron has a friend who posts his nonsense to the intenet isn't the point, although I still find that personally reprehensible. The point is to take his pens and pencils away. And to encourage those who host websites to take responsibility for the content they are providing, whether they are directly related to the content or not.

[Monkey Angst]

And to encourage those who host websites to take responsibility for the content they are providing, whether they are directly related to the content or not.

OK. Are you volunteering for the job of determining what content is acceptable and what isn't? You seem to have a pretty good handle on it. Form here on out, how about all new pages get passed through you for judgment?

As has been pointed out, "unacceptable" isn't "illegal." The only legal issue here is whether the prisoner's letters should be allowed through to the outside. If his friend has the letters, he is free to do as he likes with them and outside of illegal content, there should be nothing the ISP can do about it.

[Nox]

OK. Are you volunteering for the job of determining what content is acceptable and what isn't?

As Freddy Prinz used to say, "It's not my yob mon". Nor should it be ... the prisons already have in place staff to do just that.

As has been pointed out, "unacceptable" isn't "illegal."

I think that this point is easily settled by the prison censor.

The only legal issue here is whether the prisoner's letters should be allowed through to the outside.

Not really. The issue of prisoners letters has already been determined. What is at issue is the depth of content.

there should be nothing the ISP can do about it.

ISP?? I don't know what this is. It must be something in the last link ... which I couldn't get to come up.

Nox

[CrazyPete]

ISP = Internet Service Provider

[Nox]

Thank you. I was trying to associate the letters with the prison system.

Nox

[uglygoat]

i believe the courts will rule in favor of the letters being being published on the web. an arizona court struck down a state law that attempted to prohibit the same...

anyhow, it is the same principle of freedom of speech/information that is the issue. would you object to this madman's ramblings being published in medical and criminal journals?

[Nox]

I object to that tripe being published anywhere.

Consider this:

Just because something can be published ... doesn't necessarily mean it should be published. Two very different things.

Nox