Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

May 15, 2018

Illinois Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277

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


To Whom It May Concern: EDIT

We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because it disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership. There are two sections checked alleging various allegations as to the publications objectionable content. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.

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).

Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.

It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.

We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because “disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership.” There are three sections checked alleging various allegations as to the publications objectionable content. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.

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).

Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.

It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.

We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Censorship Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The notice states that the publication was rejected because “disrupts order, promotes organization and leadership.” There are three sections checked alleging various allegations as to the publications objectionable content. However, there are no references to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content or the specific content which is objectionable. It is unclear what content is alleged to be objectionable.

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).

Further, the notice without page references does not meet the scrutiny required by the Constitution and a more definite statement of the objectionable content is required.

It is apparent from the face of recent censorship notices, the language used to justify the censorship is boilerplate. As such, the provides direct evidence of a blanket ban of all ULK publications in direct violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to well-established federal case law.

We require the decision to censor the issue referenced above be vacated and delivered to the prisoners to which it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.

Other: Detrimental to safety and security of the facility. Disrupts order. Promotes organization and leadership.

Signed: C. Hurle

November 12, 2017

Illinois Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to the above reference prisoners. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on boilerplate language. Such language does not provide the specificity required to sustain such censorship and does not allow us a reasonable opportunity to appeal such improper censorship The form fails to provide specific information as to the objectionable content, such as page numbers or quoted portions of the publication. The censorship form on its face is clear that no violation of prison policy has occurred, and the censorship is without merit.

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).

As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand ULK be delivered forthwith to the prisoners it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

Denial - The publication be disapproved as it contains material determined to:

Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline, or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.

Other(specify): Safety and security concern, disrupt order, promotes leadership and organization, promotes hunger strikes.

Reviewed by C. Hunter 10/25/17
Concur: Randy Pfister 10/25/17
Concur: Leslie McCarty 11/13/17

Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or it might facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.

Other: Detrimental to safety and security of the facility. Disrupts order. Promotes organization and leadership.

Signed: C. Hurle

November 12, 2017

Illinois Department of Corrections
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key, Issue 58

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a Rejection Notice (notice) for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK) addressed to the above reference prisoners. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on boilerplate language. Such language does not provide the specificity required to sustain such censorship and does not allow us a reasonable opportunity to appeal such improper censorship The form fails to provide specific information as to the objectionable content, such as page numbers or quoted portions of the publication. The censorship form on its face is clear that no violation of prison policy has occurred, and the censorship is without merit.

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).

As such, we object to the censorship on the grounds it does not violate FLDOC policy. We demand ULK be delivered forthwith to the prisoners it was addressed.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

Facts reviewed: On grievance dated 7/13/17 offender claims that the May/June 2017 issue of MIM Distributors, No. 56 was banned but feels that he should be allowed to have it since he is interested in all radical political movements.

Counselor Dennis responded "According to the Publication Review Committee MIM Distributors May/June 2017 No. 56 is on the banned list."

Grievance Officer finds that according to the PRC Chairperson the publicaiton was reviewed and determined to be on the banne dlist. Offenders' political beliefs are not a factor in PRC determinations. Offender received and signed a Publication Review Determination and Course of Action DOC0212 form on 7/13/17. It appears that proper protocol was followed.

Recommendation: Based upon a total review of all available information it is the recomendation of this Grievance Officer that this offender's grievance be DENIED due to offender's publicaiton being on the banned list.

Grievance officer's name: David Mansfield, CCII

Chief Administrator Officer's Response 7/21/2017:
"I Concur"

September 6, 2017

Illinois DOC
Office of the Director
PO Box 19277
Springfield, IL 62794-9277

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 56


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of a notice of censorship from XX concerning the issue of Under Lock Key (ULK), issue 56. We are the distributors of ULK and did not receive notice of the censorship of this issue at any time.

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 provide an original reason for censorship of issue 56 of ULK, which clearly states the objectionable material and reason for censorship within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

Illinois Administrative Code title 20, section 525.140(h) requires written notification to the sender when mail is censored or denied.
In the alternative, we request the decision to censor issue 56 be vacated and the issue be delivered to all prisoners to whom it was addressed.

You may respond to the address listed.


Sincerely,
MIM Distributors

Notification of publication denial because publication:

Be otherwise detrimental to security, good order, rehabilitation, or discipline or itm ight facilitate criminal activity or be detrimental to mental health.

Article drugs in prison, unity amongst prisoners.

Promotes leadership and organization detrimental to safety and security of the facility.

Signed: C. Hunter

Publication Review Committee
Stateville Correctional Center
PO Box 112
Joilet, IL 60434-0112

March 29, 2015

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX

Dear PRC,

MIM Distributors mailed the following items to the above-named prisoner held at Stateville Correctional Center.

How to Form a Study group: sent 10/22/2014
Invitation to Join Study Group: sent 10/22/2014
Censorship guide: sent 9/15/2014
Unconfirmed mail form: sent 8/18/2014

These letters were neither returned to MIM Distributors nor received by Mr. XXX. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

As you are no doubt aware, Departmental Rule 525, Section 525,140 (d), which states: "All incoming non-privileged mail, including mail from clerks of courts, shall be opened and inspected for contraband." In addition, Departmental Rule 525.140 (h) states: "When an offender is prohibited from receiving a letter or portions thereof, the committed person and the sender shall be notified in writing of this decision." By failing to notify both Mr XXX and MIM Distributors the facility is clearly in violation of D.R. 525.140.

As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender’s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)).

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

Sincerely,

XXX, Legal Assistant
MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties

Publication Review Committee
16830 So. Broadway St.
P.O. Box 112
Joliet, IL 60434

April 11, 2013

RE: Illegal censorship of letter to Mr. XXX

Dear PRC,

On August 25, 2012 MIM Distributors mailed a single envelope containing 3 form letters to the above-named prisoner held at Stateville Correctional Center. The contents of this envelope was a form letter explaining the services of the prisoner support organization MIM(Prisons), a letter inquiring about the prisoner's plans after his release from prison, and a letter inviting him to participate in a study course. The envelope and contents was returned to MIM Distributors with "Banned From Facility" written on the envelope. It was not accompanied with any indication as to why this mail was banned, or what policy even allows mail to be banned in IDOC. Nor were we sent a Publication Receipt and Course of Action Form DOC0211 regarding this incident.

Dating back to 2008, we have documentation tracking the illegal censorship of mail at Lawrence Correctional Center. This mail ranges from magazines such as MIM Theory 9: Psychology (published by MIM Distributors), to the bimonthly publication Under Lock & Key (published by MIM Distributors), as well as simple letters such as this one. The common thread with all this mail is that there is no legal or formal notification given to the sender as to why the mail is being banned, and the sender is not being afforded an opportunity to appeal the censorship.

Your Administrative Code Title 20 Section 525.230 Procedure for Review of Publications clearly states at point c) that "If a review is initiated, the offender shall be notified in writing that the publication is under review and the notice shall include an explanation why the publication is deemed to contain unacceptable material in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. If the publication was mailed directly from the publisher, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the publisher. The written notice shall be sent to the offender and the publisher, if applicable, no later than 30 days from the date the correctional facility receives the publication. The written notice shall indicate that:

1) The offender may submit a written supportive statement or other documentation within seven days after the date of the notice that the publication is under review. An extension will be granted if in the opinion of the Officer there is a legitimate reason why relevant information could not be submitted timely.

2) The publisher shall be allowed 21 days from the date of the notice to file an objection and to submit a written supportive statement or other documentation."

Additionally, also from your own Administrative Code, at 525.230, "b) A publication may not be rejected solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social, or sexual or because its contents are unpopular or repugnant. A publication that may be rejected includes, but is not limited to, a publication or portion thereof that meets one of the following criteria:"

As you are likely aware, the U.S. Supreme Court also has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoners, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications listed above.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoners and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties
Warden