Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

Formal Grievance log # 23-6-37898

FRONT PAGE: PRISON IS WAR CONT. ON PAGE 3
PAGE 5- THE ANTI GANG CAMPAIGN
PAGE 6- THE MURDER OF TYRE NICHOLS -DO YOU APPROVE?
PAGE 8-SEPTEMBER 9TH RECOGNIZED FROM FLORIDA ISOLATION CELLS

July 8, 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 85
(hereafter ULK) sent to one ****, dated June 12, 2024, which we received on June 28, 2024. A copy of this notice is 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, we refer you to look at page 2 of ULK where state that we “explicitly discourag[e]” our supporters “from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” We find it difficult to reconcile this declaration, which we print in nearly all our publications, with FDOC’s accusation of us encouraging “riot, insurrection, rebellion” and presenting threats “to the security [and] order” of FDOC.

In addition, 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 85 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to ****. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

July 8, 2024
Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notification of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your censorship notice for the publication Fundamental Political Line of the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons (hereafter shortened to FPL) sent to one **** at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, dated June 13, 2024, which we received on June 28, 2024. A copy of this notice is enclosed within. We are the publishers of FPL.

The listed reason for censorship is that FPL allegedly violates sections (15)(d) and (15)(p) 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” and/or “otherwise presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.”

As the publishers of FPL, we know that no material fitting any criteria of the above descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. In fact, you will find that on page 6 of FPL the publication includes a disclaimer actively discouraging the behavior it is accused of promoting where it is written: “We encourage prisoners to join these battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.”

Furthermore, we take particular issue with section (15)(d) as a legal basis on which to violate an individual’s First Amendment rights. Given that nowhere in FPL 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 the prisoner’s First Amendment rights.

We request the decision to withhold FPL be vacated and the publication be forwarded to ****. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

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

Page 35: any prisoner actively opposing revolution should be eliminated ASAP
Page 38: revolutionary action gave rise to an alternate political, ethical and moral universe where established terms like "murder" and "killing" failed to convey the meaning of taking lives that many believed deserved to be taken.
The whole publication uses past violence to justify future rebellion.

May 22, 2024

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

Re: Notification of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your censorship notice for the publication Tip of the Spear sent to one XXXXXX XXXXXX DC#XXXXXX at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, dated April 2, 2024, which we received on May 10, 2024. A copy of this notice is enclosed within.

The listed reason for censorship is that Tip of the Spear allegedly violates sections (15)(i) and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401, FAC in that it “is dangerously inflammatory in that it advocates or encourages riot, insurrection, rebellion, organized prison protest, disruption of the institution, or the violation of federal law, state law, or Department rules” and/or “otherwise presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.” Furthermore, the notice lists two excerpts from pages 35 and 38 to support these allegations.

As distributors of Tip of the Spear, we know that no material fitting any criteria of the above description can be found anywhere in the publication. The book describes a significant historical event that occurred in the context of a correctional facility in the United States, but in no way does this description “advocate or encourage” acts of riot or rebellion. As for the aforementioned excerpts, one is a quote from a prisoner who participated in the Attica riot and one is a description by the author of the riot participants’ mindsets at the time. This is obviously an inane basis on which to censor the publication as it is akin to censoring a historical work which focuses on World War II for being antisemitic merely for mentioning the Holocaust or Nazi Germany.

We request the decision to withhold Tip of the Spear 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,

The Literature Review Committee reviewed the material contained in Under Lock and Key 2024/Winter No. 84.

And it was determined that it meets the specific criteria contained in Section (3) Rule 33-501.401 F.A.C. admissible reading material for disapproval.

...

Mailroom Staff
Santa Rosa Correctional Institution

A. Johns/Z. Culpepper signed 3/18/2024, stamped as mailed/filed 3/27/2024

reiterating that Literature Review Committee has determined ULK 84 is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(15)(i)(p) so appeal is denied

submitted a grievance for holding book for 2.5 months with no notice claiming it never arrived

October 7, 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 Rejection for the publication Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated September 1, 2023.

Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the fact that we did not receive notice of censorship from your institution but from Mr. XXXXXX himself. This is patently unacceptable as it violates the long-standing legal precedent of Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) wherein the courts found that that “the author of [censored mail] be given a reasonable opportunity to protest that decision.” This finding has been upheld for nearly five decades, including in Montcalm Pub. Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996) where the courts held that “publishers are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard when their publications are disapproved for receipt by inmate subscribers.”

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(g), (15)(h), and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material for either facilitating “the commission of a crime”, encouraging activities leading to physical violence, or presenting a threat to the security of the prison.

As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any 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 request the decision to withhold Chican@ Power and the Struggle for Aztlán 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,

September 17, 2017

Florida Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

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

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your form (DC5-101) dated August 14, 2017 relating to notification of impoundment (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). We are the distributors of ULK. We have received no notice of censorship as required by chapter 33 of the Florida Admisntrative Code. The impoundment of ULK is de facto censorship and does not provide adequate notice of such censorship in violation of the United States Constitution and a litany of cases which are directly on point.

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).

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 issue of ULK was impounded alleging the material was in violation of Fla. Admin. Code 33-501.401 (3)(e), (3)(g), and (3)(m). It is alleged pages 1, 11, 14, 15 and 17 advocate insurgency and disruption of institutional operations. A careful review of the referenced pages, do not contain any objectionable material as outlined by F.A.C. 33-501.401.

It is readily apparent that the Florida 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 to censor the Guide be vacated and ULK be delivered to the prisoner to whom it was addressed.

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.

September 29, 2017

Re: Impoundment of "Under Lock and Key - Issue 57"

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 "under Lock and Key - Issue 57." The DC5-101 form that you mention receiving in your letter was the notice of impoundment. The reasons for impoundment from the DC5-101 that you cite in your letter are the actual reasons the publication was impounded. They are from the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 33-501.401(3). I will list them again here for your convenience:

(e) It depicts, describes or encourages activities which may lead to the use of physical violence or group disruption;
(g) It is dangerously inflammatory in that it advocates or encourages riot, insurrection, idsruption of the institution, violation of department or institution rules;
(m) It otherwise presents a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system or the safety of any person.

In their regularly scheduled meeting of August 30, 2017 the Literature Review Committee of the Florida Department of Corrections upheld the institution's impoundment and rejected the publication for the grounds stated. This means that issue will not be allowed into our correctional institutions. In researching this response it was noted that the issue was incorrectly entered into our database solely for FAC 33-501.401(3)(m), but that clerical error is being corrected and the database will reflect all three reasons set forth for the rejection.

If you have further questions please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

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

In their regularly scheduled meeting of August 30, 2017 the Literature Review Committee of the Florida Department of Corrections upheld the institution's impoundment and rejected the publication for the grounds stated. This means that issue will not be allowed into our correctional institutions

You have provided no evidence to prove discriminatory/retaliatory/racist actions on the part of staff.