Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Staff responds saying: “All mail except legal is going to be returned to sender. All mail is to be sent to TextBehind.”

Mail not received includes publications that cannot be sent to TextBehind.

September 21, 2023

Mr. [X],

Enclosed you will find a letter from XXXXXX D. XXXXXX OPUS# XXXXXX, a prisoner at the Tabor Correctional Institution, as well as a request form sent from Mr. XXXXXX to the mail room at the Tabor CI. Within the letter, Mr. XXXXXX states that he never received, among other mail sent to him, his copy of issue 82 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of ULK.

As Mr. XXXXXX points out, section .0107 under chapter D.0100 of the Policy and Procedure Manual published by the NC Division of Prisons requires that notice of censorship is sent to the publisher of the censored publication. The Supreme Court lays out a similar requirement in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974). Seeing as neither we nor Mr. XXXXXX received any notice of this censorship, the NC Division of Prisons which you preside over is violating both ours and Mr. XXXXXX’s First Amendment rights as secured by the U.S. judicial system.

Furthermore, the request form we have included from Mr. XXXXXX states that: “All mail except legal is going to be returned to sender. All mail is to be sent to TextBehind.” When the mail which is sent to TextBehind is not getting through to prisoners, this is patently unconstitutional. We would advise you to look at cases defining the past 60 years of legal precedence concerning the First Amendment rights of prisoners, such as Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964), Procunier v. Martinez as mentioned above, and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).

We request the decision to withhold ULK as well as other mailed items immediately be vacated and the items be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. In absence of such a decision, you must provide reasoning for this censorship. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

PG#4-6, 12 - PROMOTES REBELIOUS, HOSTILITY, SEDITIOUS AND DISLIKE [sic]

December 17, 2023

Director of Operations
North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, Division of Prisons
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

Re: Letter to Publisher


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to prisoners in NCPDS, dated November 7, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The reason listed for censorship is the violation of code I, which alleges that ULK contains “materials which are used or appear reasonably likely to be used to intimidate or sexually harass facility staff or visitors.” We are at a loss as to how a newsletter consisting of illustrations, discussions on contemporary politics, and letters from our readers could possibly be used to “intimidate or sexually harass” anyone. We have gone ahead and reviewed the listed pages in the letter to be safe and we emphatically disagree with the Publication Review Committee’s decision to censor ULK on these grounds.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that if, “a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with PLN, due process requires that PLN be told of this new reason.” (emphasis added)

We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to subscribers held by NCPDS. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

letter from Christina Fox, Chief of Security