Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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 55

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your correspondence dated August 8, 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 August 14, 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 (H)(D&F). The Notice cited to the cover and page five (5) 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).

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. The articles on the cover and page 5, fall within the noted exception of subsection (D) as storytelling and moral teaching and do not promote violence or insurrection. This is clear on the face of the referenced pages of the publication.

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 sections of ULK shows there are no such references.

We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 55 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.


Sincerely,



MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

Eddie L. Pearson, Warden
Sussex I State Prison
24414 Musselwhite Dr.
Waverly, VA 23891
May 9, 2013

RE: Censorship of book mailed to Mr. XXX

Dear Warden Pearson,

Recently MIM Distributors was notified by the Mailroom Supervisor at Sussex I State Prison that the book titled A Curtain of Ignorance by Felix Greene was denied delivery to the above-named prisoner, who is held in your custody. This book was returned to MIM Distributors with a "Notice of Unauthorized Correspondence." There was no reason checked on this Notice to indicate what justified this censorship. Even though it was not checked, there was text written in the "Other" section, "material enclosed unauthorized." That is the only clue offered as to why this book was returned.

What is even more confusing is that Mr. xxx even had a Property Request Form approved by Ms. Bellamy PP for receipt of this book. The Personal Property Request Form containing Ms. Bellamy's signature was enclosed with an invoice when the book was mailed to Mr. XXX. I understand that all incoming mail is subject to inspection and approval per various DOC Operating Procedures, but it is still surprising that a book would be approved for Mr. xxx's property, but then rejected without cause.

Ultimately, I am writing this letter to:
1) Inquire as to why this book was denied delivery to Mr. XXXXXX, and
2) appeal this censorship in an effort to have this book approved for delivery to Mr. XXXXXX.

I appreciate your consideration, and anticipate your response.

Sincerely,


MIM Distributors
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140

CC: Affected parties