Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

October 5, 2024

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your censorship notice for the publication Under Lock and Key Issue 86 (hereafter shortened to ULK) sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX DC#XXXXXX at Florida State Prison, dated August 8, 2024, which we received on September 28, 2024. Copies of both this notice and ULK are enclosed within. We are the publishers of ULK.

The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly violates sections (15)(d) of Rule 33-501.401, FAC in that it “contains a tattoo pattern or photograph that is large and distinctive enough to be used as a tattoo pattern.”

As publishers who utilize much artwork from prisoners in our materials, we take issue with section (15)(d) as a legal basis on which to violate an individual’s First Amendment rights. Given that nowhere in ULK do we provide instructions on how to apply tattoos or how to manufacture tattoo materials, our alleged violation of section (15)(d) must be for including pieces of art in the publication. The vagueness of the language in section (15)(d) provides FDOC the power to censor any piece of mail that includes art given that some arbitrary FDOC employee deems said art could feasibly be used as a pattern for tattooing. In effect, this gives FDOC carte blanche to censor almost any mail sent to a prisoner with complete impunity which is obviously an overstepping of administrative power and a gross violation of both ourselves and the prisoner’s First Amendment rights.

We request the decision to withhold ULK 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,

(15)(p) otherwise presents a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system or the safety of any person.

Page 8 - CA Silences Reports of Drug Trade in Prisons/The Stoopid Epidemic of K2 in Nevada Prisons

Page 9- We Want Security, They Want Control/Suboxone Pushed Willy-Nilly By CDCR Medical Staff

Page 10-Challenging Constitutionality of Digital Mail, Reports from TX

Page 11 - How the prison war looksin Texas Ad-Segs/ ULK83 Correction; murders weren't about drugs

Page 13 - Some Thoughts on S.O.'s and Sexual Orientation/In Their Way They Expect Violence

February 28, 2024

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 84
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX [#XXXXXXX], dated February 8, 2024, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(i) and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material which either “encourages riot, insurrection, rebellion, organized prison protest,” or “presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.”

As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any part of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. Furthermore, 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 when 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.” We would assert that merely listing the page numbers and titles of individual articles does not adequately “attempt to explain” the security concerns you have

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 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,

as reported by one of the prisoners who was prevented from receiving it

December 17, 2023

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 83
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated November 29, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under section (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. This section condones the prohibition of material which “presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.”

As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any part of this description can be found anywhere in the publication. Furthermore, 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 when 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.” We would assert that merely listing the page numbers and titles of individual articles does not adequately “attempt to explain” the security concerns you have

We request the decision to withhold issue 83 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,

August 23, 2023

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Notice of Action Taken for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82 (hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated August 8, 2023.

The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(i) and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material which is “dangerously inflammatory” or “presents a threat to … security.” You further list articles found in pages 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 15 as containing objectionable material under the aforementioned criteria.

As the publishers of ULK, we know that none of the listed articles contain material which fits the descriptions you allege that it does. We would advise you to look closer at page 2 of ULK where we expressly lay out our opposition the claims made, 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.”

Furthermore, 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].” Merely citing the titles of articles in the newsletter is not sufficient explanation for its censorship on the basis of security concerns.

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). Should you decide censor ULK on different grounds, we expect to be notified.

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,

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Service Administrator
501 S Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

1 June 2022

RE: Censorship of 12 Steps Program at Florida State Prison

To Whom It May Concern,

We are in receipt of a Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications dated 5/11/2022, signed and postmarked 5/19/2022, for the publication “A Revolutionary 12 Step Program” mailed to Mr. XXXXXX L. XXXXXX at Florida State Prison. The form cites sections (15)(i) and (15)(p). The list of page numbers is just a list of every chapter from the publication besides the intro and works cited, with no specific examples provided of how this publication is a threat to security.

The publication is helping people work through the reasons they’ve engaged in addictive and illegal activity in the past so as to change their behavior in the future. I have no idea why the mailroom thought this was a threat to security, so I am filing this appeal to deliver this publication to Mr. XXXXXX. I’m sure you will agree there is nothing in this publication that contradicts the FDOC’s rehabilitative objectives..

Sincerely,