Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

"Otherwise presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the Correctional System, or to the safety of any person"
"Depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption"
"Encourages or instructs in the commission of criminal activity."

August 28, 2017

Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
MIM(Prisons) Censorship Pack

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your correspondence (DC2-521) dated July 20, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced Censorship Guide (hereinafter, “Guide”) sent to XXXX. We are the publishers of the Guide.

The Guide was censored alleging the material was in violation of Fla. Admin. Code 33-210.101. The Notice failed to identify which specific section(s) of the Guide allegedly contained the material supporting censorship and rejection.

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

Fla. Admin. Code 33-210.101 is unconstitutional on its face and as-applied. Subsection (14)(c) clearly states “the inmate has initiated the process by filing a formal grievance within 15 days of notice of the mail rejection.” No such provision is included for the publisher to appeal the censorship decision.
The notice is also vague as it provides inadequate notice in order to justify any censorship other than a boilerplate recitation of the directive with no reference to any specific portion of the publication which is objectionable.

As such, we object to the notice of censorship as failing to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal. Please provide additional information which clearly states the objectionable material within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the issues raised, we will address the portions of the policy cited as the reason for censorship.

The information sent was a legal guide concerning censorship of our publications by prison authorities. It includes no “threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the Correctional System, or to the safety of any person.” Neither does it depict, describe or encourage activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption nor encourage or instruct in the commission of criminal activity.

As such, we object to the violations of our First Amendment rights as a publisher:

1. The notice of censorship fails to provide adequate information upon which to formulate and base any appeal;
2. The lack of opportunity to submit an appeal.

We request the decision to censor the Guide be vacated and the Guide be delivered to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.

Please note we are requesting a copy of any and all records relating to all the Guide being censored by the Florida Department of Corrections, to include date of censorship, identification of the document, and the specific reason for censorship.

Please provide a written response which addresses our grievances within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

You may reply to the address listed.

Sincerely,



MIM Distributors

Re: Institutional Rejection of MIM(Prisons) Censorship Guide

My name is Dean Peterson, and I am Library Services Administrator for the Florida Department of Corrections. I am in receipt of your letter regarding the MIM(Prisons) Censorship Guide. From the number of the FDC form you reference and your description of what happened it is apparent the institutional mailroom did not handled the Censorship Guide as a publication, but instead handled it in accordance with the Florida Aministrative Code rule for routine mail. As such, the item was not impounded, was not posted to the list of impounded publications for any other institution to see, was not referred to the Literature Review Committee for review, and thus does not appeal on the list of rejected publications. That means that if the exact same Guide came to any other inmate mailroom staff woul dlook at it afresh. In theory, it could even be allowed into the institution.

The Florida Administrative Code makes no provision for further review.

Sincerely,

Dean Peterson
Library Services Admiinstrator
Florida Department of Corrections
501 South Calhoun St
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

pg9 and pg21: a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person. Encourages riot, insurrection, disruption of the institution.

Depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption.

Enclourages or instructs in the commission of criminal activity.

Signed: T. Crowder

Depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption.

Enclourages or instructs in the commission of criminal activity.

Signed: T. Crowder