Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

You are hereby advised that the following issue(s) of publication(s) sent to an offender of the Virginia Department of Corrections have been disapproved for delivery to offenders of the Department:

Number 57 July/August 2017 Pages 1-24

for the following reasons:

D. Material, documents, or photographs that emphasize depictions or promotions of violence, disorder, insurrection, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or federal laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure.

F. Material that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related activity or association.

You may otain an independent review of this decision by writing, within fifteen calendar days, to the Deputy Director, Division of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 269633, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerey,

Melissa Welch
Chairman, Publication Review Committee

October 4, 2017

Virginia Department of Corrections
Deputy Director, Division of Operations
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 57

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your correspondence dated September 14, 2017 relating to publisher notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). We received the Notice on October 2, 2017 and have fifteen (15) days from that date to submit this appeal. See VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2 (F)(2). This appeal is timely.

The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2 (D&F). The Notice cited to pages 1-24 of ULK. However, the citation to those portions of ULK are vague and provide no clear identification of content alleged to have violated VADOC Op. Proc. 803.2. 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).

A reference to pages 1-24 and boilerplate language fails to “clearly inform” us of the grounds for the censorship.

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 vagueness, we will address the two portions of the policy cited as the reason for censorship.

Subsection (D) references “[m]aterial, documents, or photographs that emphasize depictions or promotions of violence, disorder, insurrection, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or federal laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure Note: This criterion shall not be used to exclude publications that describe such acts in the context of a story or moral teaching unless the description of such acts is the primary purpose of the publication. No publication generally recognized as having artistic or literary value should be excluded under this criterion...” A careful review of ULK shows that there is no content which meets this criterion.

Subsection (F) references “[m]aterial that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related activity or association.” Again, a careful review of the referenced pages of ULK shows there are no such references.

It is readily apparent that the Virginia Department of Corrections has banned ULK “solely because the [publication’s content] is religious, philosophical, political…or because its content is unpopular or repugnant.” Such censorship based on this reasoning is a violation of our First Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 404-05, 414-19 (1989).

We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 57 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.

In the alternative, we require a more definitive statement as to the specific sections of ULK which are alleged to violate Virginia Department of Corrections policy.

You may reply to the address listed.

To the publisher:

You are hereby advised that the following issue(s) of publication(s) sent to an offender of the Virginia Department of Corrections have been disapproved for delivery to offenders of the Department:

Under Lock & Key, Jan/Feb 2017 No. 54, page 15

for the following reasons:

F. Material that depicts, describes, or promoted gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related activity or association.

you may obtain an independent review of this decision by writing, within fifteen calendar days, to the Deputy Director, Division of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections, PO Box 26963, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerely,

Melissa Welch
Chairman, Publication Review Committee

To the Publisher:

You are hereby advised that the following issue(s) of publication(s) sent to an offender of the Virginia Department of Corrections have been disapproved for delivery to offenders of the Department:

Under Lock & Key - July/August 2016, No.51

for the following reasons:

D. Material, documents, or photographs that emphasize depictions or promotions of violence, disorder, insurrection, terrorist, or criminal activity in violation of state or federal laws or the violation of the Offender Disciplinary Procedure.

you may obtain an independent review of this decision by writing, within fifteen calendar days, to the Deputy Director, Division of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 26963, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerely,

Melissa Welch
Chairman, Publication Review Committee

You are hereby advised that the following issue(s) of publication(s) sent to an offender of the Virginia Department of Corrections have been disapproved for delivery to offenders of the Department:

Under Lock & Key, MIM, Mar/Apr 2016 No. 49

for the following reasons:

F. Material that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes, or other gang-related actiity or association.

you may obtain an independent review of this decision by writing, within fifteen calendar days, to the Deputy Director, Division of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 26963, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerely,

Melissa Welch
Chairman, Publication Review Committee

Prison denied any censorship

Deputy Director
Division of Operations
Virginia Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261

August 29, 2009

Director,

This week we received your letter regarding the censorship of mail that MIM Distributors has attempted to send to prisoner X and prisoner Y. The pieces of denied mail are MIM Theory, Winter 1993, #4 and an article "Maoism Around Us," respectively. Both pieces of literature in question were censored based on VDOC mailroom policy 803.2 criteria #7 & 12.

We are aware of the specifics of policy 803.2, including criteria #7 & #12. However, in the reason you provided for this censorship, you failed to give any substantial, actual reason for how these publications violate VDOC policy.

This letter is to ask for an independent review of this decision. We request that you also include specific examples from the publications in question to demonstrate how they violate policy 803.2 criteria #7 & #12.

Please excuse the tardiness of this request. Unfortunately it was impossible for us to request an independent review within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the disapproval, July 27, because the letter wasn't postmarked until August 11, and didn't arrive in our mailbox until well after the 15 day mark.

We appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

MIM(Prisons)

John M. Jabe, Deputy Director
Virginia Dept of Corrections
PO Box 26963
Richmond, VA 23261-6963

19 October 2009

Mr. Jabe,

Enclosed are the materials you requested for independent review as per the enclosed letter. Please note, that these are just two examples of literature that has been censored at Red Onion over the last couple years. As far as we know, none of our subscribers have received a copy of our newsletter Under Lock & Key since 2008 despite being issued approvals for subscriptions by the administration there. Generally, the material is returned to us with no explanation given, so we appreciate you taking the time to review these materials. However, we are not so much concerned about these two pieces in particular, but the handling of our mail at Red Onion in general.

We look forward to your response and hope to resolve the problems we have been having with getting mail to its intended recipients.