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

May 19, 2019


North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Prisons
Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services
MSC 4221
Raleigh, NC 27699-4221


Re: Appeal Response to Under Lock & Key
Under Lock & Key Issue 67, March/April 2019


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your response to our appeal, dated April 24, 2019, for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The original notice stated that the publication was rejected because of alleged content in violation of policy D.0109(f). However, the addendum references a violation of section (d) and specifies the offending material as being on pages 1, 2, 5 and 6. The notice states these pages “…promote political extremism and tactics.” Political extremism is not a violation of policy D.0109.

The appeal response further fails to provide any detail as to the location of and the content of the alleged offending language as required by a large body of federal caselaw.

Careful and reasoned review of the pages cited, and the remainder of the publication shows no content which remotely meets the alleged objection set forth in the notice. Further, the content of the pages do not meet any definition of objectionable content as defined by any portion of policy D.0109.

Due process requires adequate notice of the reasons for censorship. Instructive is the District Court’s reasoning set forth in Prison Legal News v. Jones, “Procunier demands that the publisher "be given a reasonable opportunity to protest" the censorship. Id. at 418. For an opportunity to be reasonable, the publisher must know of the grounds upon which the publication has been censored. See Henry J. Friendly, "Some Kind of Hearing", 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1280 (1975) (explaining that it is "fundamental" to due process that "notice be given . . . that . . . clearly inform[s] the individual of the proposed action and the grounds for it"). This knowledge component of due process does not turn on whether the publication is the first copy or a subsequent copy. What matters is the basis for censorship. If a subsequent impoundment decision is based on a different reason not previously shared with [the publisher or distributor], due process requires that [the publisher or distributor] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015).

Your rejection fails to provide adequate notice of the reasons for censorship as it fails to state with any specificity the alleged offending content or reference to its location in the publication.

We require that you provide a specific and detailed notice to the alleged offending content with references to its location in the publication by page number.
It appears the NCDPS fails to take its responsibilities of adherence to the First Amendment seriously. Failure to provide adequate notice with which we may formulate a meaningful appeal may result in litigation against the NCDPS and any persons individual involved in the violation of our constitutional rights.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

I have yet to receive Under Lock & Key 38 (May 2014) whith I should've received, be in possession of right now. Nor have I been presented with a censorship notification form for ULK 38.

Assistant Director of Support Services
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Division of Prisons
4260 MSC
Raleigh, NC, 27699-4260
July 16, 2014

RE: Censorship incident occurred at Tabor Correctional Institution ? exclusion of publications sent to prisoner xxx

Dear Assistant Director,

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred at Tabor Correctional Institution in Tabor City, North Carolina.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner an issue of a publication titled Under Lock & Key. Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. xxx:
Under Lock & Key, issue 38 on 05/30/2014

We recently learned from the prisoner (Mr. xxx) that he never received the publication listed above. Nor did he receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. MIM Distributors didn?t receive any notice of censorship determination either.

Your Division of Prisons Policy D.0100 states at sections D.0103 and D.0107 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications. The same Policy obligates the Warden to come to a determination and notify the prisoner within 7 days from the arrival of the publication.

Both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither Mr. xxx, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher, under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests

- to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned publications;
- in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials.
- We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner,
- and that future incoming mail from MIM Distributors to prisoners held at Tabor CI be handled in accordance with NCDPS policies and procedures, and federal and state law.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
P.O. Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

Warden/Superintendent
Tabor Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 730
Tabor City, NC 28463

I received your letter dated July 16, 2014 via legal mail. The TCI Mailroom Staff opened your letter in my presence on 7/24/2014. I still to this day do NOT have in my possession Under Lock & Key No. 36 nor No. 38. NOR have I ben presented with any censorship notification form of any kind for either of these issues.

Assistant Director of Support Services
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Division of Prisons
4260 MSC
Raleigh, NC, 27699-4260

August 7, 2014

RE: Censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 38 (May/June 2014)

Dear Assistant Director,

On July 30, 2014 we received a censorship determination from Fay Lassiter, Chair, Publication Review Committee regarding our publication titled Under Lock & Key No. 38 (May/June 2014). This newsletter was sent via USPS Presorted Standard mail to several prisoners currently held in different facilities of your Department.

The determination states that the publication was disapproved for delivery to the prisoners because page 4 of the issue allegedly violates North Carolina Division of Prisons policy D.0100. The specific reason cited is indicated at Reason .0109 D of the policy (?violence, disorder, insurrection or terrorist/gang activities against individuals, groups, organizations the government or any of its institutions?). The comment noted is ?Encourages insurrection and disorder.?

Page 4 of this particular issue of Under Lock & Key contains three articles focusing on the United Front for Peace in Prisons (UFPP). The UFPP is aimed to prevent infighting amongst prisoners, which is commonly known to be the primary source of violence within prisons. It is clearly not a threat to the safety of any person, and is in fact an attempt to quell the violence that runs rampant all across the prison system. This attempt is not without basis; unity around common principles has been proven historically to eliminate violence among differing groups, even in prisons. How can information on making peace within prisons present a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system? Without doubt, if there were less prisoner-on-prisoner violence, it would relieve much of the occupational hazard for Correctional Officers and actually increase the security and good order of the correctional system, and personal self-discipline of the prisoners.

Additionally, in your Policy & Procedures D.0100 Publications Received/Posessed by Inmates, at .0103 (b), it states ?Descriptions and justifications should be specific enough to enable the Publication Review Committee (if there is an appeal) to turn to each listed page and immediately identify which words or images were disapproved and why.? I know this Prcedure relates to the notes the Warden makes when referring to publication to the Publication Review Committee. However, I am interested in which specific words or images on page 4 of Under Lock & Key No. 38 that the NCDPS finds offensive.

In addition to NCDPS Policy & Procedures, the U.S. Supreme Court has already stated in Procunier v. Martinez, 416, U.S. 396 (1974) and in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490, U.S. at 416 n. 14 (1989), that prison officials violate the First Amendment when for reasons unrelated to legitimate penological interests they engage in ?censorship of . . . expression of ?inflammatory political, racial, religious or other views?.

Furthermore, the motivation alleged to support the censorship determination seems to be too vague and not sufficiently articulate to satisfy the threshold of adequate motivation established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal Courts have stated in several occasions that "Prison authorities cannot rely on general or conclusory assertions to support their policies." Walker v. Sumner (9th Cir. 1990) 917 F.2d 382, 385 and that "Unsupported security claims couldn't justify infringement on First Amendment rights." Crofton v. Roe (9th Cir. 1999) 170 F.3d 957

Lastly, the Committee?s letter of disapproval does not provide any indications as to the respect of the procedure described in section D.0104 of your Policy & Procedures ? Chapter D. Particularly, the Committee does not indicate whether each member of the Committee has indeed conducted an independent review, the result of the review, whether the Committee was overruled by the Chairperson and based on what reasons. The lack of the above information does not allow the publisher (MIM Distributors) to fully comprehend the motivation of the disapproval, implicitly depriving it of its right to appeal.

With the present letter MIM Distributors would like to:
(1) appeal the negative determination to censor the above-named publication;
(2) request the decision be reversed and the publication be delivered to the intended recipients as soon as possible;
(3) be provided with detailed minutes of the Publication Review Committee's independent reviews regarding this publication; and
(4) ask that the censorship of this publication be discussed at the next quarterly meeting between the Publication Review Committee and the Chief of Program Services to ensure its compliance with all NCDPS Policy & Procedures as well as United States law.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,



CC: Affected parties

Cynthia Bostic, Assistant Director
Support Services
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

1 September 2012

To Ms. Bostic,

This letter is to request an independent review of two decisions to censor mail sent by MIM Distributors to unnamed prisoners held by the state of North Carolina. One was dated August 23, 2012 and was in regards to Under Lock Key No. 27 (July/August 2012). The second was dated August 24, 2012 and was in regards to an unspecified issue of Under Lock & Key. Though you do not indicate what issue it is, the notice lists pages 1 & 3 as promoting the commission of criminal activities. I can state with certainty that no issue of Under Lock & Key promotes breaking the law and this policy is specified on page 2 of every issue as well.

In light of the incomplete information found in this form I am once again requesting that Fay Lassiter complete the fields in the future to indicate the publication name and issue/date, as well as to indicate pages that violate the rules and the specific reason for disapproval in each case. Please provide this information to me in your response regarding these appeals.


Sincerely,