Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

March 20, 2024

Director of Operations
North Carolina Division of Prisons
831 W. Morgan Street, MSC 4261
Raleigh, NC 27699-4261

Re: LETTER TO PUBLISHER


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your censorship notice for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”) which was sent to one XXXXXX B. XXXXXX #XXXXXX. We are the publishers of ULK. For administrative purposes, we’d like to note that this notice is dated to 2/29/24 and was received by us on 3/19/24. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication allegedly violates code A of North Carolina Division of Prisons policy D.0100. Code A in this policy states that publications received by prisoners must not facilitate “[t]he commission of criminal activity and/or the violation of state or federal law and/or the violation of Division of Prisons policy and/or offender disciplinary policy and procedures.” The specific reason listed on the notice is that page 10 of ULK “depicts excessive force against policy using impact weapons.”

First and foremost, the content that is being alleged as violating code A is a piece of art on page 10 which was made by a prisoner. This is protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression and as such it is unconstitutional to censor our publication on this basis.

This being said, we also cannot find anything in Division of Prisons policies that prohibit depictions of “excessive force” as is alleged in the notice. The only somewhat related item we can find is in policy D.0100 where “depictions of unlawful violence” are prohibited. We agree that the art piece is a depiction of violence, but it is in no way unlawful. In fact, your very own policy F.1500 on “Use of Force” specifically lays out guidelines for when it is appropriate to beat prisoners with such “impact weapons.” How could an act which your institution permits and encourages be unlawful?

Furthermore, we would direct you towards the following disclaimer that we include in every issue of ULK on page 2: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” We therefore fail to see how ULK is violating code A and purportedly advocating for “[t] commission of criminal activity” while simultaneously explicitly disavowing such activity.

We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 84 be vacated and the publication be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Under Lock & Key Winter 2024 Page: 10 was disapproved for: In violation Code D

"Depiction that may encourage a group disruption."

April 30, 2024

Director of Operations
North Carolina Division of Prisons
831 W. Morgan Street, MSC 4261
Raleigh, NC 27699-4261

Re: LETTER TO PUBLISHER


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your censorship notice for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”). We are the publishers of ULK. For administrative purposes, we’d like to note that this notice is dated to April 2, 2024 and was received by us on April 27, 2024. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.

We would like to note that said censorship notice does not include any information about the facility to which ULK was sent to nor any information about the prisoner it was sent to. We object to this practice on the basis of the prisoner’s Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication allegedly violates code D of North Carolina Division of Prisons policy D.0100. Code D in this policy states that publications received by prisoners must not facilitate “violence, disorder, insurrection, or terrorist/gang activities against individuals, groups, organizations, the government or any of its’ institutions.” The specific reason listed on the notice is that page 10 of ULK contains a “depiction which may encourage a group disruption.”

First and foremost, the content that is being alleged as violating code D is a piece of art on page 10 which was made by a prisoner. This is protected under the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression and as such it is unconstitutional to censor our publication on this basis.

This being said, we find the reasoning listed in the notice to be highly hypocritical. Your institution claims that depicting a prisoner being beat by a correctional officer “may encourage a group disruption,” yet your very own policy F.1500 on “Use of Force” specifically lays out guidelines for when it is appropriate to beat prisoners with such “impact weapons.” How can you simultaneously condone a violent act in your institution while prohibiting any artistic expression depicting said violent act for fear it may cause a security concern?

Furthermore, we would direct you towards the following disclaimer that we include in every issue of ULK on page 2: “We encourage prisoners to join [our] battles while explicitly discouraging them from engaging in any violence or illegal acts.” We therefore fail to see how ULK is violating code D and purportedly advocating for “violence, disorder, insurrection, or terrorist/gang activity” while simultaneously explicitly disavowing such acts.

We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 84 be vacated and the publication be forwarded to its intended recipient(s). Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

Staff responds saying: “All mail except legal is going to be returned to sender. All mail is to be sent to TextBehind.”

Mail not received includes publications that cannot be sent to TextBehind.

September 21, 2023

Mr. [X],

Enclosed you will find a letter from XXXXXX D. XXXXXX OPUS# XXXXXX, a prisoner at the Tabor Correctional Institution, as well as a request form sent from Mr. XXXXXX to the mail room at the Tabor CI. Within the letter, Mr. XXXXXX states that he never received, among other mail sent to him, his copy of issue 82 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of ULK.

As Mr. XXXXXX points out, section .0107 under chapter D.0100 of the Policy and Procedure Manual published by the NC Division of Prisons requires that notice of censorship is sent to the publisher of the censored publication. The Supreme Court lays out a similar requirement in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974). Seeing as neither we nor Mr. XXXXXX received any notice of this censorship, the NC Division of Prisons which you preside over is violating both ours and Mr. XXXXXX’s First Amendment rights as secured by the U.S. judicial system.

Furthermore, the request form we have included from Mr. XXXXXX states that: “All mail except legal is going to be returned to sender. All mail is to be sent to TextBehind.” When the mail which is sent to TextBehind is not getting through to prisoners, this is patently unconstitutional. We would advise you to look at cases defining the past 60 years of legal precedence concerning the First Amendment rights of prisoners, such as Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964), Procunier v. Martinez as mentioned above, and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).

We request the decision to withhold ULK as well as other mailed items immediately be vacated and the items be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. In absence of such a decision, you must provide reasoning for this censorship. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

PG#4-6, 12 - PROMOTES REBELIOUS, HOSTILITY, SEDITIOUS AND DISLIKE [sic]

December 17, 2023

Director of Operations
North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, Division of Prisons
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

Re: Letter to Publisher


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to prisoners in NCPDS, dated November 7, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The reason listed for censorship is the violation of code I, which alleges that ULK contains “materials which are used or appear reasonably likely to be used to intimidate or sexually harass facility staff or visitors.” We are at a loss as to how a newsletter consisting of illustrations, discussions on contemporary politics, and letters from our readers could possibly be used to “intimidate or sexually harass” anyone. We have gone ahead and reviewed the listed pages in the letter to be safe and we emphatically disagree with the Publication Review Committee’s decision to censor ULK on these grounds.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that 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.” (emphasis added)

We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to subscribers held by NCPDS. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

letter from Christina Fox, Chief of Security

no response as of November 2

from chairperson of Publication Review Committee [no name or signature]

memo attached saying "Per the Publication Review Committee in Raleigh, NC this publication has been disapproved. There are twon names on the memo: A Ms. Poteet and a Mr. Newton. Neither of which are on the Publication Review Committee. Ms. Poteet is administartive assistant to associate warden Mr. Netwon here at Foothills Corr Institution. That being said there's no way of knowing if the disapproval letter is really from the publication review committee in Raleigh of if this is simply a letter printed off computers here at the facility.

December 17, 2023

Director of Operations
North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, Division of Prisons
4260 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4260

Re: Letter to Publisher


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 82
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to prisoners in NCPDS, dated November 7, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The reason listed for censorship is the violation of code I, which alleges that ULK contains “materials which are used or appear reasonably likely to be used to intimidate or sexually harass facility staff or visitors.” We are at a loss as to how a newsletter consisting of illustrations, discussions on contemporary politics, and letters from our readers could possibly be used to “intimidate or sexually harass” anyone. We have gone ahead and reviewed the listed pages in the letter to be safe and we emphatically disagree with the Publication Review Committee’s decision to censor ULK on these grounds.

Furthermore, we would remind you that as the publisher, we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications such as Under Lock & Key. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989). The publisher also has a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, Prison Legal News v. Jones, 126 F. Supp. 3d 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2015) found that 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.” (emphasis added)

We request the decision to withhold issue 82 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to subscribers held by NCPDS. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may
result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

letter from Christina Fox, Chief of Security