> Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime

Isn’t that the reason you need permission in the first place?

> Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime.

Assessing this is precisely why permission is required. Also victim protection, for example; a criminal recounting the crime in an interview in detail would potentially retraumatize their victims.

There are lots of reasons permission is required. I agree it’s not pleasant, and feels wrong, but there are real reasons that are not “prisoners aren’t people.”

At the risk of being accused of a slippery slope, you could use similar logic to control speech of others too.

I think the real justification is part of prison is living a life of servitude where you basically have no control and everyone else makes the decision for you. America already more or less decided free speech was a danger worth accepting, and limiting prisoner communication won't put a dent on the collateral from that.

> Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime

He did this constantly leading up to the trial, at some point you lose the benefit of the doubt

I think think you are correct here to a point. If you want to say SBF has lost the benefit of the doubt and is never allowed to engage in business related to crypto or to communicate with the former management of FTX I think that's reasonable. I also think it's reasonable to say that as a convicted criminal in prison the level of suspicion is so high that all your communication with anyone (except lawyers) can be monitored without additional due process. But going from that to "you can't communicate with anyone at all unless we say so" is a step too far.

How do you tell if he's talking to co-conspirators and doing more crimes or not unless you are monitoring who he is talking to?

This was absolutely in furtherance of his crimes. A Tucker Carlson interview was item 3 on the list he kept of ideas for how to get away with it.

Seeking a pardon is legal and actions in furtherance of that end are also legal as long as those actions themselves are not crimes. You are allowed to try to "get away it" in the context of legal process. Legally, seeking a pardon is no different than filing an appeal.

> Seeking a pardon is legal and actions in furtherance of that end are also legal as long as those actions themselves are not crimes.

I agree with this, but prisons have no obligation to let prisoners do everything that's legal. That's kinda the point of prison. If SBF has some important information to share about what it's like on the inside or why he should get a pardon, he can forward it through his lawyer.

> Legally, seeking a pardon is no different than filing an appeal.

I don't agree with this. There's all kinds of ways in which formal legal processes are different than general speech, and this is one of them. Prisoners get to talk to their lawyer and file legal documents because these are critically important rights, which can't be suspended even for a good reason.

Going on Fox News from inside prison is not the way a pardon gets requested.

It is when the POTUS is a Fox News addict who actively enjoys the appearance of impropriety...

appearance? :)

I mean, some people prefer covering it up to flaunting it :)

It is in 2025.

Carlson is doing his own thing now, he got fired from Fox in 2023.

"This seems extremely authoritarian"

Yes prisons generally are like that.

Seems expensive and passive aggressive. Just horsewhip him. He'll get the message.