Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

August 23, 2023

Gus Harrison Correctional Facility
2727 E. Beecher St
Adrian, MI 49221

Re: Notice of Mail/Package Rejection

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 82 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The notice cites pages 4 and 6 as containing objectionable material which allegedly violates Michigan Department of Corrections PD.05.03.118. Page 4 is alleged to contain material advocating for “group insurrection” while page 6 is alleged to contain material which “Advocate[s]/Promote[s] Violence or Unrest.”

We have reviewed ULK and believe these descriptions are inaccurate and thusly the refusal to forward the publication to Mr. XXXXXX is unjust.

Please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” The courts further found that such censorship is not allowable when, “the state offered absolutely no specific facts or explanation to support its argument [of censorship],” as you have done so here.

We would advise you to look closer at page 2 of ULK where we expressly lay out our opposition to both violence and group insurrection, quoted here for your convenience: “Our current battles in the United States are legally permitted. We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts. MIM(Prisons) and its publications explicitly oppose the use of armed struggle at this time.”

Additionally, we would like to refer you to Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800 where the Supreme Court held that the censorship of statements which “magnify grievances” is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, we will remind you that PD.05.03.118 itself lays out that “Mail shall not be prohibited solely because its content is … political, social, …, [or] unpopular.”

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 Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

A hearing was conducted on August 15, 2023. This hearing concluded that the publication in question would be rejected.

...Your appeal has been denied.