IDOC RECOGNIZES THE IDAHO PRISON BLOG AS A POLITICAL SITE - YET CONTINUES TO PUNISH PRISONER FOR EXERCISING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

 

In response to an official grievance, (#IC 210000024) the Warden at the ISCC recognized the Idaho Prison Blog as a political site, "used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view" thereby cementing protections to the site guaranteed under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In January, 2021, prisoner Dale Shackelford was found guilty of harassment by the ISCC Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) for words contained within a post on this site (WHEN A GUARD HATES A PRISONER - OR THE GREAT TORTILLA CAPER - THAT NEVER WAS ) wherein Shackelford described circumstances and actions of staff surrounding his firing from the prison job he held for 2 years. The guard* who wrote the disciplinary report against Shackelford stated in his claims that he was being harassed because he (the guard) was the only person to whom Shackelford had emailed a courtesy copy of the article. When Shackelford proved to the DHO that courtesy copies of the article were emailed to several IDOC staff (including the Director of the IDOC, Josh Tewalt) at the exact same time the copy was emailed to the reporting guard, the DHO found that it was the content of the article that constituted the harassment, not the courtesy copy (email) having been sent. On appeal from the DHO's findings, Shackelford maintained that his constitutionally protected free speech precluded the finding of harassment and subsequent punishments. Shackelford further proved that the content could not have been considered harassment in that IDOC Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) require all electronic messages sent by inmates to be screened by IDOC Electronic Communications Staff (ECS), and that any harassing emails would have necessarily been withheld as required by rule. Because the article (and courtesy copy email) that was posted was sent out of the ISCC by Shackelford via email, the content could not have been considered harassing, because harassing content would not have been released. (SOP 503.02.01.001, page 8 - v.6). Realizing that Shackelford was correct, ISCC administrators have since attempted to change the rationale for the finding of guilt and punishment, now stating it was the simply the fact that the courtesy copy was sent to the reporting guard, not the content of the article - despite specific findings of the DHO. This constitutes a THIRD theory of why Shackelford must be guilty of the same rule violation, as administrators have dropped the reporting guards allegation that being the sole recipient of the emailed copy of the article somehow constituted harassment. In response to a separate grievance regarding the retaliatory nature of the disciplinary report written by the original reporting guard, the guard still maintains that he was the only person to have received the courtesy copy of the article. "Offender Shackelford also indicates that I lied about being the only recipient of the 'courtesy email,'" wrote the guard in response to the grievance. "I reviewed the email I received from daleshackelford1@gmail.com and confirmed I was the only recipient." (Grievance IC #210000295). [The courtesy copy emails of the articles were sent to all the IDOC staff "bcc".] Incidentally, the guard now states that he was instructed by a superior ranked officer (the same officer who reviewed and approved the report) to write the disciplinary report. Articles posted in good faith by a prisoner to bring about social change, inform the public of the activities of government or simply to protect constitutional rights in prison is a form of political expression and is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. That is, and always has been the mission of the Idaho Prison Blog, and now, the political and social nature of this blog has been validated by the IDOC leadership. Stay tuned! _____________ * ISCC investigators have just recently begun intercepting articles which contain names of prison staff under the misconception that there are rules prohibiting disclosure of these names, or that they will be able to defend their actions which are violative of the First Amendment to the Constitution in court under the guise of some sort of legitimate penological interest. Neither excuse is valid. For information on any state employee, including salaries, dates of hire and other data, see the new links on the sidebar of this site.