Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

To the Publisher:

You are hereby advised that the following issue(s) of publication(s) sent to an offender of the Virginia Department of Corrections have been disapproved for delivery to offenders of the Department:

Under Lock & Key March/April 2019 No. 67 pg. 12

For the following reasons:

F. Material that depicts, describes, or promotes gang bylaws, initiations, organizational structure, codes or other gang-related activity or association.

You may obtain an independent review of this decision by writing, within fifteen calendar days, to the Deputy Directory, Division of Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections, P.O. Box 26963, Richmond, Virginia 23261.

Sincerely,

Wendy Brown
Chairwoman, Publicaiton Review Committee

On 8/23/2019 you seized a MIM publication (The Stalin Issue) because you claimed it was "used. It is not "used", it is just old. It's been in stock for over 20 years, so it may look old, but it is not "used."

"I am still looking into this, having some difficulty getting a hold of the vendor" [no attempt to contact MIM(Prisons) was ever made]

May 7, 2019

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 March/April 2019


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 prisoner. The notice states that the publication is being rejected based on “ENTIRE PUBLICATION: DEVISIVE AND RACIST.” The censorship form on its face fails to state specific and articulable references to any objectionable content. Based on the notice received it is clear that no violation of prison policy, to which you specifically point, has occurred, and the censorship is without merit. The publication contains no such content.

We have received no notice of censorship for this issue of ULK. Again, the Florida Department of Corrections has failed to adhere to its own internal regulations, the Florida Administrative Code and applicable federal caselaw. You are put on notice that continued failures of this nature by your agency will result in the appropriate legal action.

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). No notice can never be adequate.
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 prisoner it was addressed.

Failure to provide adequate notice of the alleged offending content within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this letter may lead to litigation.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

August 1, 2019

Missouri Department of Corrections
DAI Director
2927 Plaza Drive
PO Box 236
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Re: Appeal of Censorship of Publication
Under Lock & Key Issue 68

MULTIPLE OFFENDERS

To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your Censorship Notification of issue 56 of Under Lock & Key (hereinafter, ULK). We are the publishers of Under Lock & Key.

The notification lists three reasons for censorship which are listed as:

1. constitutes a threat to the security, good order or discipline of the institution;
2. may facilitate or encourage criminal activity; or
3. may interfere with the rehabilitation of an offender.

A final explanation states the publication “contains information which can be used to instill violence or hatred among the offender population.”

Nowhere in the notification is there listed the page numbers or examples of content the Missouri Department of Corrections finds objectionable. This is unacceptable as a matter of law.

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).

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) (emphasis added).

The reasons cited for the censorship are vague and unsupported by the notification as no reference to any alleged objectional contents is set forth. We remind you that such a broad-based vague response is unconstitutional.

As a general response to the censorship, and without waiving our objection to the failure to provide notice, we have reviewed ULK and do not believe it meets the criteria for censorship as outlined in Missouri Department of Corrections Censorship Procedure IS13-1.2.

We request the decision of the Publication Review Committee be vacated and issue 68 of Under Lock & Key be forwarded to those to whom it was addressed.

Failure to provide appropriate notice and adherence to your policies may result in legal action.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Sincerely,




MIM Distributors

May 19, 2019


North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Prisons
Director of Rehabilitative Programs and Services
MSC 4221
Raleigh, NC 27699-4221


Re: Appeal Response to Under Lock & Key
Under Lock & Key Issue 67, March/April 2019


To Whom It May Concern:

We are in receipt of your response to our appeal, dated April 24, 2019, for the above referenced issue of Under Lock & Key (ULK). The original notice stated that the publication was rejected because of alleged content in violation of policy D.0109(f). However, the addendum references a violation of section (d) and specifies the offending material as being on pages 1, 2, 5 and 6. The notice states these pages “…promote political extremism and tactics.” Political extremism is not a violation of policy D.0109.

The appeal response further fails to provide any detail as to the location of and the content of the alleged offending language as required by a large body of federal caselaw.

Careful and reasoned review of the pages cited, and the remainder of the publication shows no content which remotely meets the alleged objection set forth in the notice. Further, the content of the pages do not meet any definition of objectionable content as defined by any portion of policy D.0109.

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).

Your rejection fails to provide adequate notice of the reasons for censorship as it fails to state with any specificity the alleged offending content or reference to its location in the publication.

We require that you provide a specific and detailed notice to the alleged offending content with references to its location in the publication by page number.
It appears the NCDPS fails to take its responsibilities of adherence to the First Amendment seriously. Failure to provide adequate notice with which we may formulate a meaningful appeal may result in litigation against the NCDPS and any persons individual involved in the violation of our constitutional rights.

Please govern yourself accordingly.


Sincerely,


MIM Distributors

The mailroom was contacted and Mrs. Hernandez (mailroom supervisor) provided the response: Per Chapter 33-210-101(9) states "inmates shall not use correspondence privileges to solicit or otherwise commercially advertise for money, goods, or services. Incoming mail from MIM Distributors violated the policy by soliciting money and stamps, therefore mail was returned to sender.

Based on the foregoing, your grievance is denied.

A formal grievance may be returned without processing if it is not received within 15 calendar days of the date of the response to the informal grievance.