Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

May 15, 2018

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue March/April 2018 Issue 61
SCI Pine Grove

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your April 19, 2018 notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”).

The Notice states the objectionable content relates to “bondage of little girl” on page four of ULK. A review of page four is clear that no graphical depiction exists in any form. Page four does reference an article by Family Fun magazine’s May 2017 issue as containing an advertisement “show[ing] a boy duck-taping a prepubescent girl to a garage wall.” This is the only reference and it is based on publication in a magazine which was not censored by PADOC. This reference is related to discussion and news reporting that is both meaningful and noteworthy. It is not in violation of any PADOC policy or standard. As such censorship based on this factor is unconstitutional and subject the PADOC to legal action.

The Notice states the objectionable content also relates to “depicts female officers in negative manner” on page nine of ULK. The editorial context is clear that the publication takes a strong stand that women “should not be subject to sexual harassment.” A writer’s negative view of prison staff is not a valid reason for censorship. Content which is unpopular or repugnant does not allow for censorship. Thornburgh v. Abbotti, 490 U.S. 401, 404-05, 414-19 (1989).

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

Please govern yourselves accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors