In the New York Times on March 1, 2012 I found an article entitled, "Free-Speech Argument In a Lawyer's Appeal" written by Colin Moynihan.  It's an interesting article.  Lynne F. Stewart, a disbarred attorney, was convicted in 2005 on 5 counts of providing material aid to terrorism and of lying to the government.  She was originally sentenced to 28 months in prison, but was RESENTENCED to 10 years in prison.  Why the change in her sentence?  Apparently she ticked some people off when she publicly stated that she could "...do that sentence standing on her head."  When she was asked a few days later if she regretted her conduct she answered, "I might handle it a little differently, but I would do it again."   After these comments federal prosecutors appealed the sentence and asked for a new sentence stating that Ms. Stewart's comments lacked remorse.  She was re-sentenced to 10 years.  Ms. Stewart's lawyer, Herald Price Fahringer stated "One of the most cherished policies of this nation is that everybody should be allowed to speak freely.....This case puts that principle to a very great test."

So, here's the issue.  Did the prosecutor's appeal of the lower court's sentence come at the price of violating the right to freedom of speech?  She was already convicted and given a sentence so why does it matter what she says.  I'm not agreeing with her flippant attitude, but being punished further for speaking her mind doesn't seem all that right.  Is she being punished for her crimes or for her words?  What do you think?