Who controls history?

It seems there are plans afoot by the Government to stop criminals making money from selling their stories or writing about their crimes. I have to say the I can see the point that someone who is in prison and serving a sentence for a crime should not be able to make money from it by either selling a story or writing it whilst serving their sentence.

However, once a sentence is complete, should such restrictions really apply? After all, if we accept that the measurement of justice relates to the sentence that is given then surely once the sentence is complete there should be no restrictions on someone writing about what they've done?

It seems to me that if we restrict those who society consider "free" from writing about specific events the implication is that a sentence does not in fact end when one is released from prison. We are, in effect, extending sentences into the realm of thought and expression.

Of course, the murderer who writes about his murders whilst in prison should not be allowed to profit from it, and this is the case already if Dennis Nilsen's recent letter to the Standard is to be believed. But should we restrict people who have served their sentences? I don't think we should.

Is there not another side concern relating to the historical record though? If we restrict ex-convicts from writing about what they did then we actually restrict the future understanding of today in history. Who controls history in that cases? The state or the actors involved in the events?

It's certainly a difficult subject to approach, and I imagine that it owes more to the Government's desire to triangulate the Conservative Party on matters of law and order. After all, the press statement is couched within the language of emotion, talking about victim. It smacks of spin more than it does of principle. What's more, if such laws did come in, we might never get to read Tony Blair's memoirs.