Opponents decry proposed media limits at Massachusetts prisons

By The Associated Press

06.17.02

Printer-friendly page

BOSTON — Lawyers, lawmakers and prisoners' families slammed proposed media restrictions at the state's prisons late last week, calling them "a mockery of the Bill of Rights" and a signal that the corrections department has something to hide.

"It leads us to wonder why? What does the Department of Corrections want to keep from the public?" Barbara McCarthy, the mother of an inmate, said at a public hearing June 14 on the regulations. "As taxpayers and citizens of this state, we have the right to know ... what is going on inside of our prisons."

No one spoke in favor of the proposed rules, which would ban cameras and tape recorders from medium- and maximum-security prisons, eliminate media access to segregated inmates and deny confidential interviews at all correctional facilities.

Prison officials have said the rules stem from long-standing concerns about security, safety and respect for the privacy of victims. They have not identified any specific security breaches.

Only one prison official, assistant counsel Philip Silva, was present at the hearing. He made no comment, but said he would pass along the testimony to Department of Corrections Commissioner Michael T. Maloney. The regulations could take effect within three to four weeks, he said.

The speakers at the June 14 hearing painted a picture of a secretive prison system that already does whatever it can to bar public scrutiny of how inmates are treated and how taxpayers' money is being spent.

"It is already hard enough for a reporter to uncover stories that take place behind bars," said Cristina Rathbone, an author writing a story about female inmates at the Framingham prison. "It seems senseless, and beneficial to no one but the department itself, to make it any harder."

Two state representatives submitted a letter signed by 28 lawmakers encouraging the corrections department to abandon the plan.

"The last time I checked, freedom of the press and freedom of speech were the very foundation of our Constitution," said state Rep. Ruth Balser, D-Newton. "If the media [get] barred from the prisons, it will just force the legislators to visit more often."

Balser also said she was offended by the department's claim that the motive for the proposals was concern about victims.

"I feel that's an exploitation," she said.

Opponents of the regulations specifically targeted the department's proposed elimination of a clause that says "the conditions in a state correctional institution are a matter of interest and concern to the general news public." Equally troubling, they said, is a proposed change that instructs prison officials to judge requests for interviews based on whether they would "result in a significant benefit to law enforcement agencies.”

"Whether media access is a benefit to law enforcement is entirely beside the point," said Alex Sugerman-Brozan, an attorney with Health Law Advocates. "The times when media access and public exposure are most important are precisely those times when such reporting is not a benefit to law enforcement agencies."

Likewise, he said, the proposal to have a prison official present at all inmate interviews would "put all but the most courageous prisoners in reasonable fear of reprisals."

Not all of the opponents were champions of the news media. Susan Mortimer, of Somerville, who has an incarcerated relative, said that "news coverage of prison conditions is infrequent and superficial."

But, she said, "the proposal before us today is a mockery of the Bill of Rights. It neither enhances the public safety nor deters crime."

On June 13, the Radio-Television News Directors Association sent a letter urging Maloney to reconsider the new regulations, which the group said would impede journalists from making complete and accurate reports and would likely keep inmates from speaking candidly.