Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

February 25, 2200

Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Institutions Division
Director’s Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099


Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
TDCJ Offender Grievance Manual
Attempted delivery to XXX



To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Director’s Review Committee Decision Form (hereinafter, “Form”), dated February 11, 2020 concerning the decision to uphold censorship of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Offender Grievance Manual. We are the mailing entity listed on the form. We would note that we have never been provided notice of the censorship related to the Form as required by Federal case law.

We wrote to you about this same issue in May 2019 and received no response from your office.

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], due process requires that [the publisher] be told of this new reason.” 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1258 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).

It is an arbitrary and capricious use of power to censor the TDCJ’s own publication, the Offender Grievance Operations Manual. As a government publication it is freely available and not subject to copyright protection. Further, since the TDCJ fails to provide the manual in its law libraries, we have a Constitutional right to distribute the manual. In plain English, the TDCJ’s censorship of its own manual relating to offender grievances is “asinine.” Is the TDCJ publishing offender manuals which do not comply with TDCJ censorship guidelines?

Your failure to provide notice of censorship as well as the arbitrary and capricious nature of the censorship is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights as the mailer of the manual.

We look forward to your reply concerning this censorship of the TDCJ Offender Grievance Manual and potential litigation concerning same.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,

(c) It contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes, riots or security threat group activity.

Remarks: Pages 1 + 6 contain information detailing prison strikes

Does offender wish to appeal the denial? Yes

DRC upheld the denial on 10/1/15

Director's Review Committee
PO Box 99
Huntsville, TX 77342-0099

February 2, 2014

This letter is to request an appeal of the rejection of Under Lock & Key Nov/Dec 2013 N35. The notification we received, dated January 23, 2014, indicated that the reason for rejection was: "Publications contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve a breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes or riots." And in the "remarks" section this information is added: "Reason C. Page 6 contains material of a racial nature."

Your notification does not specify what on page 6 is intended to achieve a breakdown of the prison. That page includes just two articles. The first is a continuation from an article from page 5 discussing the origins of racism and it's theoretical basis in nations in modern society. This article focuses on how to eliminate racism in the United States, and the world. The second article is about a South Carolina group of prisoners interested in uniting with others who are organizing for peace in prisons. There is absolutely nothing on that page that could be construed as racial, it is in fact the exact opposite: a page of information about how to overcome racism and achieve unity.

We are concerned that the reviewers of this publication did not actually read the page in question (or the publication at all). It is our contention that the reason for rejection would require content that can not be found within the pages of Under Lock & Key. Further, it is clear that the citation of page 6 indicates a complete lack of understanding of the actual content within this publication.

We request an appeal of this decision.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties