Recent news reports suggest that Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of leaking government files to Wikileaks, is being held by our government — alone, often naked, in a small isolation cell for months at a time as he awaits legal proceedings to commence against him. Many Americans are appalled by the thought of this kind of treatment. While it appears these confinement conditions serve no purpose other than to degrade Pfc. Manning and break his spirit, they provide an important opportunity for the nation to reflect on the deeply damaging impact of solitary confinement.
Sen. John McCain, who was held in solitary confinement as a prisoner during the Vietnam War, : "it's an awful thing, solitary…it crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment." It's hard to believe that such things could happen in America.
But the truth is that such things happen in America every day. Tens of thousands of prisoners in the U.S. are treated similarly, and sometimes worse. For these individuals, solitary confinement means being locked alone in a solid-walled cell for 23-24 hours a day with little human contact or interaction, reduced or no natural light (or sometimes cells are illuminated for 24 hours a day), strict regulation of access to amenities (often meaning very little reading material, no TV, and no radio), greater constraints on visitation (no physical contact with friends or family, including sons and daughters), and the inability to participate in group activities, including eating with others. Often, prisoners are kept in solitary confinement for months and even years, and sometimes decades. for his religiously based refusal to cut his hair.
The devastating effects of solitary confinement have long been well known. "It's a standard psychiatric concept, if you put people in isolation, they will go insane. Most people in isolation will fall apart." In a 2005 submission to the U.S. Supreme Court, a group of psychologists and psychiatrists concluded that "no study of the effects of solitary or Supermax-like confinement that lasted longer than 60 days failed to find evidence of negative psychological effects." Solitary confinement can also violate the international law the United States is so quick to cite in reference to other countries.
Prison officials claim this punishment of last resort is reserved for the "worst of the worst." However, more and more prisoners are put into "the hole" for minor infractions, , resulting in prison rule violations.
And the boom in the building of prisons devoted to solitary confinement (also known as "Supermax" prisons) in the 1990s means more space despite limited need. As a result, the in Supermax prisons in more than 30 states, and thousands more in other prisons and jails across the country.
Further, at least 10 to 20 percent of prisoners in solitary confinement suffer from mental illness — either pre-existing or induced through solitary confinement. Some states admit to many more. Even children housed in adult prisons — a terrifying proposition anyway — are
The Colorado legislature is currently and, in particular, making sure the mentally ill are not further harmed by these conditions. Legislators got emotional at the horrors related during the hearing this month on the issue. Unfortunately the Colorado Department of Corrections has claimed making these changes is too expensive for the state and may succeed in killing the bill. To aid the ACLU of Colorado in this effort, . The ACLU affiliates in and are also engaged in legislative battles to reduce the use of solitary confinement in their states.
Critics have rightly pointed out that the our government should not violate the fundamental human rights of Pfc. Manning, regardless of any crimes he may have committed. The same is true for every other prisoner in solitary confinement in this great country.
Learn more about solitary confinement: Subscribe to our newsletter, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.