Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

It was determined to contain subject matter that is inadmissible per Rule 33-501.401(3)(m).

The department may prohibit admission of materials or publications if they are determined to be detrimental to the safety, security, order or rehabilitative interests of a facility or would create a risk of disorder at that facility .Chapter 33-501.401 requires that publications be reviewed and a determination made by one institution. The determination made by that institution affects all other institutions; however, as a result of an individual institution's determination, all impounded publications are reviewed and either approved or rejeted by the department's Literature Review Committee as required by rule. Therefore, the final determination is made by the department's Literature Review Committee and not by an individual institution or warden.

Based on the above information your administrative appeal is denied.

S. Milliken

IS REJECTED and may not be received by inmates...

REJECTION of the publication due to subject matter

(3)(a) It depicts or describes procedures for the construction of or use of weapons, ammunitions, bombs, chemical agents, or incendiary devices.

(3)(f) It encourates or instructs in the commission of criminal activity.

(3)(j) It depicts nudity in such a way as to create the appearance that sexual conduct is imminent, i.e. the display of contact or intended contact with a person's unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breasts orally, digitally or by foreign object, or display of sexual organs in an aroused state.

(3)(m) It otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person.

Authorized Employee: D. Locke/TJO

IS REJECTED and may not be received by inmates...

REJECTION of the publication due to subject matter

(3)(a) It depicts or describes procedures for the construction of or use of weapons, ammunitions, bombs, chemical agents, or incendiary devices.

(3)(f) It encourates or instructs in the commission of criminal activity.

(3)(j) It depicts nudity in such a way as to create the appearance that sexual conduct is imminent, i.e. the display of contact or intended contact with a person's unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breasts orally, digitally or by foreign object, or display of sexual organs in an aroused state.

(3)(m) It otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the correctional system or the safety of any person.

Authorized Employee: D. Locke/TJO

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

23 February 2014

RE: Failure to notify publisher of censorship of Under Lock & Key 35

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is to document that once again MIM Distributors was not notified by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) when one of its publications was impounded nor when it was later rejected. I am requesting that the FDOC follow its own policies and respect the publisher's rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (see Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).

In September 2013, my colleague Bailey Clarke wrote to you regarding this same matter and Susan Hughes responded explaining that only one facility will notify the publisher of censorship. However, once again, no FDOC staff from any facility has notified MIM Distributors of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 35, which was mailed to prisoners on 6 December 2013. We have only recently become aware of this censorship due to a number of letters from prisoners in Polk Correctional Institution, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution and Florida State Prison. Some of them were notified of the censorship by your department, some were not. I have enclosed the documentation for those who were provided with it.

I hope that you will honor my request for an appeal of this decision to censor, since the FDOC failed to notify MIM Distributors of the censorship and therefore the 15 days within receiving notice has not yet been passed. The notice of rejection from Santa Rosa CI states that your office has deemed ULK 35 banned because it ?otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline? of FDOC. If you uphold this decision, please provide evidence that this literature poses an immediate threat to the safety of your institution as is required by federal case law.


Sincerely,

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

23 February 2014

RE: Failure to notify publisher of censorship of Under Lock & Key 35

Dear Sir/Madam,

This letter is to document that once again MIM Distributors was not notified by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) when one of its publications was impounded nor when it was later rejected. I am requesting that the FDOC follow its own policies and respect the publisher's rights to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment (see Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).

In September 2013, my colleague Bailey Clarke wrote to you regarding this same matter and Susan Hughes responded explaining that only one facility will notify the publisher of censorship. However, once again, no FDOC staff from any facility has notified MIM Distributors of the censorship of Under Lock & Key No. 35, which was mailed to prisoners on 6 December 2013. We have only recently become aware of this censorship due to a number of letters from prisoners in Polk Correctional Institution, Santa Rosa Correctional Institution and Florida State Prison. Some of them were notified of the censorship by your department, some were not. I have enclosed the documentation for those who were provided with it.

I hope that you will honor my request for an appeal of this decision to censor, since the FDOC failed to notify MIM Distributors of the censorship and therefore the 15 days within receiving notice has not yet been passed. The notice of rejection from Santa Rosa CI states that your office has deemed ULK 35 banned because it ?otherwise presents a threat to the security, good order, or discipline? of FDOC. If you uphold this decision, please provide evidence that this literature poses an immediate threat to the safety of your institution as is required by federal case law.


Sincerely,