Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

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.

February 18, 2018

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

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

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of an undated Unacceptable Correspondence Form relating to prisoner notification of censorship (hereinafter, “Notice”) related to an unknown issue of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, “ULK”). Accordingly, as we have not received official notification of censorship from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections citing no reasons for censorship or identifying a specific publication, this appeal is timely.

While in the normal course of notification, the publisher or distributor need only be notified of the censorship on one occasion, we have yet to be notified as required. Further, the language of the Notice referring to “Denied MIM Publication” gives all appearances of a blanket ban on ULK and other MIM(P) publications, in direct violation of the requirement for individualized assessment of each publication. Such a blanket ban in unconstitutional on its face.

The issue referenced of ULK was censored alleging the material was in violation of PADOC DC-ADM 803. The Notice provides no reasons for or specific references to objectionable content. Further the Notice does not reference any issue of ULK or otherwise name the publication being rejected, supporting a reasonable basis to believe a blanket ban is in place.

As to the notice provided to Mr. X, but not to MIM Distributors, we demand that, consistent with our First Amendment rights, you provide notice of censorship specifying the reasons for censorship and the title of the publication being censored within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter.

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).

The censorship notices provided to Mr. X provides no information upon which an appeal may be based. Further review by your agency will likely show that no objectionable content exists in the unknown publication and therefore we require the publication be delivered to Mr. X forthwith. We also require notification that such action has been taken, to include the title of the publication.


Please govern yourselves accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

February 12, 2018

Washington Department of Corrections
Office of the Secretary
PO Box 41100, Mail Stop 41100
Olympia, WA 98504-1100

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 59
File No. SAL-1217-126


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 Mr. X. The notice states that ”8. Contains articles and information on drugs in prisons and the cost comparison of inside and outside of prison as well as movement of drugs.” There, however, is no reference to page numbers of the alleged objectionable content. 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.

We require the decision to censor issue 59 be vacated and delivered to Mr. X.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

pgs14 PLC report from Corcoran SHU (talk about strike)
pgs 18 Pennsylvania drug Situation is a call to unity (talk about the price of drugs inside the institution)

The following details the specific written or pictorial matter that is believed to be inadmissible:

Cover Page: Poisoning the Well
Page 4: COs$ of Drug$
page 7: Slangin' in the prison movement
Corizon Running Drugs to Control AZ Prisoners
under Lock and Key Nov/Dec 2017 No 59

February 12, 2018

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 59


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 referenced prisoners. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on the cover page “Poisoning the Well,” page 4 “Cos$ of Drug$” [sic] , page 7 “Slangin’ in prison movement,” and “Corizon Running Drugs to Control AZ Prisoners.”

Each of these referenced articles, when read in their entirety and in context, advocate for the removal of drugs from prisons. A position one would believe prison authorities would espouse. As an example, drugs are referred to as “parasitic” and being used for “manipulation.” Poisoning the Well, p. 2. The Co$t of Drug$ (p. 4) makes reference, in a negative manner, to the black-market economy, which in turn negatively affect prisoners. The commentary clearly stands for the elimination of drugs within the prison system. Slangin’ in the prison movement?, p.7. The Corizon article takes issue with the fact that non-drug interventions are not provided in treating pain, a clear indication that even prescribed drugs should be reduced within the prison system. Corizon Running Drugs to Control AZ Prisoners, p. 14. Each of these articles provides no information on how to sell or obtain drugs in a prison. In fact, each clearly states that drugs are a negative influence on prisoners and those involved in the prison drug trade. It is clear this is not in line with FDOC beliefs and values, as you have chosen to censor this material as being against the interests of the institutional population. As such, you must be condoning a belief that drugs in prison are in fact acceptable and provide for the security and good order of the institution.

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).

The cited references do not provide adequate notice as to the objectionable content. Unless the objectionable content is that drugs are acceptable in prisons.

The censorship of ULK, based on the reasons set forth in the Notice, constitute a clear violation of our Constitutional rights. These reasons are clearly not applicable under any reasoned interpretation of the Code and cannot have been made in a good faith reliance on any such application.

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