Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

March 1, 2024

DAI Director
Department of Corrections
2729 Plaza Drive
P.O. Box 236
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Re: Censorship Notification

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification for the publication Under Lock & Key Issue 83 (hereafter “ULK”) which was sent to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX. We are the publishers of ULK. A copy of your notice is enclosed within.

The listed reason for censorship is that ULK allegedly “contains information which can be used to instill violence or hatred among the offender population.” The majority of information we provide to prisoners via ULK is in the form of news articles, book reviews, and prisoner art. We fail to see how this could possibly “be used to instill violence or hatred” in such a manner as to constitute a security risk to your facility. Additionally, we include the following disclaimer 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.”

Furthermore, we hold that this rationale is so unacceptably vague as to enable the MO DOC to arbitrarily censor whatever material it desires. Please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that, when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” Your censorship notice lacks any explanation of how ULK specifically could “be used to instill violence or hatred” and as such it is impossible for us to dispute such a claim.

We request the decision to withhold Under Lock & Key Issue 83 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.


Sincerely,

February 28, 2024

Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notices of censorship of materials sent to the following prisoners:

XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY

Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).

The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.

Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

February 28, 2024

Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notices of censorship of materials sent to the following prisoners:

XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY

Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).

The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.

Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

February 28, 2024

Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notices of censorship of materials sent to the following prisoners:

XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY

Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).

The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.

Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

February 28, 2024

Central Office Legal Services
302 W. Washington Street, W341
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Notice and Report of Action Taken on Correspondence


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notices of censorship of materials sent to the following prisoners:

XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY
XXXXX YYYYYYYY

Copies of these notices are included herein. Notably, these notices do not say what material it is which is being censored by the facility. This is patently unconstitutional and in violation of our 14th amendment due process rights as publishers of the material being censored. Thankfully, we can rely on our record keeping to determine that the material in question is Under Lock & Key Issue 84 (hereafter “ULK”).

The reason listed for the censorship of ULK is “STG LAST PAGE STG MATERIALS”. Anyone who reviews the last page of ULK is able to see that this is a blatant lie. The last page of ULK consists of: two poems from prisoners, a list of our organization’s current campaigns, and the last 2 paragraphs of an article about sexual orientation. Obviously, none of this material constitutes anything that could be even remotely considered a security risk, and it is entirely unacceptable to violate the aforementioned prisoners’ First Amendment rights by conjuring up a ‘security threat group’ out of thin air. Additionally, we’d like to point out that this is not the first time that Under Lock & Key has been censored at Pendleton Correctional Facility and that these past cases of censorship similarly had no evidence to back up their claims of ULK containing “STG” materials.

Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable that authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key be vacated and the publication be
forwarded to all prisoners to whom it was sent. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

(15)(p) otherwise presents a threat to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system or the safety of any person.

Page 8 - CA Silences Reports of Drug Trade in Prisons/The Stoopid Epidemic of K2 in Nevada Prisons

Page 9- We Want Security, They Want Control/Suboxone Pushed Willy-Nilly By CDCR Medical Staff

Page 10-Challenging Constitutionality of Digital Mail, Reports from TX

Page 11 - How the prison war looksin Texas Ad-Segs/ ULK83 Correction; murders weren't about drugs

Page 13 - Some Thoughts on S.O.'s and Sexual Orientation/In Their Way They Expect Violence

February 28, 2024

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 84
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX [#XXXXXXX], dated February 8, 2024, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under sections (15)(i) and (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. These sections condone the prohibition of material which either “encourages riot, insurrection, rebellion, organized prison protest,” or “presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.”

As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any part of these descriptions can be found anywhere in the publication. Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” We would assert that merely listing the page numbers and titles of individual articles does not adequately “attempt to explain” the security concerns you have

We request the decision to withhold issue 84 of Under Lock & Key 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.


Sincerely,

February 11, 2024

Mohawk Correctional Facility
ATTN: Facility Media Review Committee
6514 Rte 26
PO Box 8450
Rome, NY 13442

Re: Sender Disapproval Notice

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Sender Disapproval Notice. A copy of this notice is enclosed within.

First and foremost, the notice which was sent to us includes essentially no information. It does not include what material is being censored, who this material was sent to, when this decision of censorship was made, or when the notice was written. This is all patently unconstitutional seeing as we, the senders and publishers of the censored material, have a due process right to adequate notice of censorship. See Lane v. Lombardi, 2:12-cv-4219 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, we would remind you that we have a First Amendment right to correspond with prisoners, including through publications, and that this First Amendment right is violated when we are not provided the information needed to appeal cases of censorship. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989).

Thankfully, we have our records to rely on and have deduced that this censorship notice is likely regarding prisoner XXXXXX XXXXXX #XXXXXX to whom we sent both Under Lock & Key Issue 83 (Fall 2023) and Power to New Afrika on January 10, 2024.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publications allegedly satisfy guidelines D and E of the Sender Disposition Notice Guidelines which state that a “publication which advocates and presents a clear and immediate risk of lawlessness, violence, anarchy, or rebellion against governmental authority is unacceptable” and that publications should not “advocate, expressly or by clear intention, acts of disobedience.”

As the publishers of ULK and distributors of Power to New Afrika, we know that no material fitting any of these descriptions can be found anywhere in either publication. Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.”

We request both that your facility begins to adhere to the findings of the courts to respect our due process rights and that the decision to withhold ULK Issue 83 and Power to New Afrika be vacated and the publications be forwarded to Mr. XXXXXX. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,

February 11, 2024

California State Prison, CSP (LAC)
44750 60th St. West
Lancaster, CA 93536

Re: Publication Withheld Pending Review


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 83
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX XXXXXX, dated January 24, 2024, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The reason listed for censorship is the alleged violation of CCR Title 15 Section 3006(c)(16) which states that prisoners are not allowed to possess material which is deemed a “threat to legitimate penalogical interests.” The notice alleges that the the material on page 11 of ULK constitutes such a “threat” when it describes “accusations of staff punishing inmates.”

The Supreme Court held in Turner v. Safley 482 U.S. 78 (1987) that to legally censor incoming mail sent to prisoners, there must be a “valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest.” The Court further explained that the “logical connection” between the asserted goal and the act of censorship must not be “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational,” and that “the governmental objective must be a legitimate and neutral one.”

We contend that there exists no such logical connection and as such the objective stated (of censoring “threat[s] to legitimately penalogical interests”) is not legitimate, rendering this act of censorship illegal and unconstitutional. This can be seen by simply noticing that the number of disruptions to “penalogical interests” that have occurred as a result of prisoners across the country reading ULK is exactly zero. This number remains zero in light of the fact that ULK is read by hundreds of prisoners at dozens of facilities which have the same desire to censor any “threat[s] to legitimate penalogical interests” as your facility.

Moreover, your facility’s decision to censor reports of abuse in prison is in no way “neutral,” as is required by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Turner. The California Office of the Inspector General has released multiple reports concerning the CDCR’s failure to adequately handle and process reports of abuse within the facilities they oversee. The decision to censor reports of abuse and misconduct cannot possibly be neutral when the CDCR, which oversees your facility, has both a vested interest in and a history of repressing these reports.

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). Additionally, 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 83 of Under Lock & Key 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.


Sincerely,

as reported by one of the prisoners who was prevented from receiving it

December 17, 2023

State Correctional Institution Muncy
PO Box 180
Muncy, PA 17756-0180

Refused Newsletters

To Whom It May Concern:

We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key (ULK). We recently received multiple copies of ULK Issue 83 addressed to prisoners residing at your facility which were stamped “REFUSED: Go to WWW.COR.PA.GOV”. These prisoners are:

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX

We are unsure why these copies of ULK were refused, but we would like to remind you that newsletters such as ours are allowed to be mailed directly to prisoners as prescribed by PADOC Policy DC-ADM 803, Section 2, Header B.5 which states that “newspapers [...] may be addressed to the individual inmate and mailed or delivered to the facility by an original source.”

Some of our readers have also notified us that they did not receive their copy of ULK Issue 82 yet it was not returned to us nor did we receive a notice of censorship. As we’re sure you’re well aware, it is illegal to arbitrarily restrict a prisoner’s access to their mail without notice to either the sending or receiving party.

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 that the rationale behind refusing ULK Issue 83 be explained so that we can ensure our publication reaches its audience. Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,

December 17, 2023

Department of Corrections
ATTN: Library Services Administrator
501 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

Re: Notice of Rejection or Impoundment of Publications


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your notice of censorship for the publication of Under Lock & Key Issue 83
(hereafter “ULK”) sent to Mr. XXXXXX, dated November 29, 2023, included herein. We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The listed reason for censorship is that the publication in question allegedly satisfies the criteria justifying its impoundment under section (15)(p) of Rule 33-501.401. This section condones the prohibition of material which “presents a threat to the security, order, or rehabilitative objectives of the correctional system.”

As the publishers of ULK, we know that no material fitting any part of this description can be found anywhere in the publication. Furthermore, please refer to Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1999) where the courts found that when censoring publications on the basis of security concerns in prisons, it is unacceptable when authorities do not, “attempt to explain in what way publications, by any particular characteristics of their own, threaten security or contribute to other problems the state asserts the regulations are designed to avoid.” We would assert that merely listing the page numbers and titles of individual articles does not adequately “attempt to explain” the security concerns you have

We request the decision to withhold issue 83 of Under Lock & Key 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.


Sincerely,